Torts - Negligence - General matters - Passenger on coach - Duty of care - Whether failure to provide adequate warning of step down into toilet - Turns on own facts

Damages - Personal injury - Award of general damages for injuries to neck, shoulder, arm and back

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 Cwth

Occupiers Liability Act 1985 WA

Result:

Plaintiff entitled to judgment against defendants for $46,176.10

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K S Pratt
Defendants: Mr I K Bellamy

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Trewin Norman & Co
Defendants: Solomon Bros

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Westralian Caterers Pty Ltd v Eastment Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 139
Woods v Multi‑Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460

Case(s) also cited:

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 201 ALR 139
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 201 CLR 49
Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438
Inverell Municipal Council v Pennington (1993) A Tort Rep 81-234
Lake Macquarie City Council v Holt [2004] NSWCA 305
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 126
Public Trustee v Sutherland Shire Council (1992) A Tort Rep 81-149
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424
Tucker v McCann [1948] VLR 222
Van Der Sluice v Display Craft Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 204
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

MACKNAY DCJ:

Introduction

The plaintiff is a 61 year old single woman, born on 6 April 1944.
The defendants operate a coach line with services which include a service between Perth and Margaret River via Busselton.
In February 2001 the plaintiff was a passenger on a coach operated by the defendants when she was injured whilst entering an onboard toilet.
The plaintiff says her injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendants.
As a consequence the plaintiff claims damages against the defendants.
The defendants deny that they were negligent, say in the alternative that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and deny the plaintiff is entitled to any award of damages.
The evidence at the trial was completed in August 2004, and following a request by counsel to that end, a direction was made for written submissions and the trial adjourned sine die.
A submission was not received from the plaintiff until February 2005, after the trial had been relisted.

Accident

On 1 February 2001…

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 Harris v Adams

Details

AGLC: Harris v Adams [2005] WADC 58
Case: [2005] WADC 58
Decision Date: 1 APRIL 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harris v Adams, the plaintiff, Harris, brought an action against the defendant, Adams, a coach operator, alleging that he had suffered injuries while on the defendant's coach due to the absence of an adequate warning about a step down into the coach's toilet. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached their duty of care by not providing an adequate warning about the step, resulting in the plaintiff turning and injuring himself. The defendant, in turn, denied any liability and argued that the plaintiff's injuries were due to his own negligence.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court had to consider whether the defendant had taken reasonable steps to warn passengers about the step into the toilet, and if the absence of such warning had contributed to the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to consider the extent to which the plaintiff's own actions contributed to his injuries.
The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a passenger on the coach. The court held that the defendant had breached this duty by not providing an adequate warning about the step into the toilet. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the breach of duty and that the defendant's failure to provide a warning had contributed to the plaintiff's injuries. The court awarded the plaintiff general damages for injuries to his neck, shoulder, arm, and back. The court considered the severity and impact of the plaintiff's injuries, as well as the defendant's failure to provide a warning, in determining the amount of damages to be awarded.
The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff general damages for the injuries he sustained, including compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical expenses. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal costs. The court found that the defendant's failure to provide an adequate warning had breached their duty of care to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of that breach. The court held that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his losses.

Orders