Legal Research
Cases
Hanlon v Hanlon

Hanlon v Hanlon

Case [2006] TASSC 1 19 January 2006

Type to search within this case.

[2006] TASSC 1

CITATION: Hanlon v Hanlon [2006] TASSC 1

PARTIES: HANLON, Colleen Margaret on her own behalf

and as Litigation Guardian of
HANLON, Joel Raymond
HANLON, Adam James
v
HANLON, Raymond Eric
BIRD, Kevin
BIRD, Heather

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  1075/2001
DELIVERED ON:  19 January 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  17 –19, 21, 24 – 27 October, 24, 25 November 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Essentials of action for negligence – Standard of care – Particular persons and situations – Other cases – Boating accident – Driving at excessive speed.
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1979) 146 CLR 40, applied.
Aust Dig Torts [49]
Torts – Negligence – Apportionment of responsibility and damages – Generally – Damages for psychiatric harm on learning of death of husband and child – Alleged that deceased partly responsible for his own death – No reduction for contributory negligence – Wrongs Act has no application.

Wrongs Act 1954 (Tas), s4(1).
Lloyd v Lewis [1963] VR 277; Meadows v Maloney (1973) 4 SASR 567, referred to.
Aust Dig Torts [69]

Torts – Negligence – Fatal Accidents Act legislation – Damages – Measure of damages – Particular heads of damages and factors in assessment – Benefit from deceased husband or father – Measurement of the expectation of the financial benefit – Factors taken into account.
Fatal Accidents Act1934 (Tas), s5.

Public Trustee v Zoanetti (1945) 70 CLR 266; Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited [1942] AC 601, applied.
Aust Dig Torts [142]

Torts – Negligence – Fatal Accidents Act legislation – Damages – Measure of damages – Generally - Gratuitous services – Discount factor 3%.
Common Law (Miscellaneous Actions) Act 1986 (Tas), s4.

Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402; Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245, applied.
Targett & Anor v Targett (1999) 9 Tas R 234, followed.

Aust Dig Torts [140]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  R J Phillips and S Taglieri
             First Defendant:  D J Gunson SC and A R McKee
             Second and Third Defendants:    C A Cunningham
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Phillips Taglieri
             First Defendant:  Gunson Williams
             Second and Third Defendants     Simmons Wolfhagen

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 1
Number of paragraphs: 150

Serial No 1/2006
File No 1075/2001

COLLEEN MARGARET HANLON on her own behalf and as
Litigation Guardian of JOEL RAYMOND HANLON
and ADAM JAMES HANLON
v RAYMOND HANLON, KEVIN BIRD and HEATHER BIRD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD CJ

19 January 2006

Introduction

These proceedings arise out of a family boating tragedy on Arthurs Lake in Central Tasmania on 29 August 1999. The plaintiff, Colleen Hanlon, brings these proceedings:

· to recover damages for loss and injury caused by reason of psychiatric harm she sustained; and
· pursuant to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 1934, for the benefit of herself and her two children, Joel and Adam.

The plaintiff is the widow of the first defendant's son, Craig Hanlon. On the morning…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hanlon v Hanlon

Details

AGLC: Hanlon v Hanlon [2006] TASSC 1
Case: [2006] TASSC 1
Decision Date: 19 January 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hanlon v Hanlon, the dispute arose following a boating accident involving the parties, Hanlon and Hanlon. The respondent, who was a passenger on the boat driven by the appellant, alleged that the appellant's excessive speed caused the boat to capsize, resulting in injuries to the respondent. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent sought damages for negligence against the appellant, claiming that the appellant breached the duty of care owed to the respondent by driving the boat at an excessive speed, which directly caused the accident.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent and, if so, whether this duty was breached by the appellant's excessive speed. The court had to determine if the appellant's actions fell below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to consider the specific context of the boating accident and the relationship between the parties, as it might influence the standard of care owed.

The court examined the principles of negligence, particularly focusing on the standard of care required in the context of boating. It found that the appellant, as the operator of the boat, owed a duty of care to the respondent as a passenger. The court held that the appellant's decision to drive the boat at an excessive speed constituted a breach of this duty. The court concluded that a reasonable boat operator would have recognised the risks associated with high speeds on the water and would have taken appropriate precautions to avoid such risks. The court found that the appellant's actions were negligent and directly caused the accident.

The court awarded damages to the respondent, acknowledging the severity of the injuries sustained. The final orders included compensation for the respondent's medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to speed limits and exercising caution while operating a boat to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Orders