Harrison v The Actors Workshop Australia Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Harrison v The Actors Workshop Australia Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 40

PARTIES:

GAVIN HARRISION
(plaintiff)

v

THE ACTORS WORKSHOP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2020/13

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24, 25, 26 February 2014

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the defendant. The Plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed on a standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURY – whether requiring students to engage in slow motion tag unreasonable – purpose of activity – credit of plaintiff – causation

COUNSEL:

Plaintiff appearing in person.

R Ashton for the defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff appearing in person.

Thynne & McCartney for the defendant.

Introduction

1. The plaintiff claims $749,114.99 damages resulting from physical injury he suffered during the course of his attending evening classes as part of a Certificate IV in Film and Television Acting conducted by the defendant.  It is not disputed that on 13 March 2012 the plaintiff fell during an improvisation class at the defendant's academy, suffering a fracture dislocation of his left elbow.  The plaintiff alleges the defendant was negligent and in breach of an obligation owed pursuant to the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011.

1. The defendant denies liability, alleges contributory negligence, and says that the plaintiff’s claim for damages is grossly overstated.

Background

1. The defendant is an accredited training organisation.  The plaintiff enrolled in the Certificate IV course conducted by the defendant from premises at a hall in Trinity Lane, Woolloongabba.  The course commenced on 30 January 2012.  He was to attend classes three nights per week.  Classes generally ran from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m.

1. On the evening of 16 March 2012 the plaintiff was one of ten students undertaking the improvisation class, conducted by an employee of the defendant, Emma Randall.  The students were all adult persons and of both sexes.

1. The classes were conducted in a part of the hall.  A number of items were stored on the periphery of the activities area within the hall.  The defendant says that the space allocated for the improvisation class was very limited, being approximately 7.5 metres long and only about 2 to 3.5 metres wide of useable space, as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2.  I prefer the evidence of a former student of the college, Loretta Kung, as to the dimensions of the space.  Ms Kung is a qualified engineer and has no obvious interest in the outcome of the case.  As will later become apparent, I have real reservations about the plaintiff’s reliability and credibility as a witness.  Ms Kung’s diagram of the area where the activity was conducted is page 200 of Exhibit 40. It was about 10 metres long and from about 5-7 metres wide but was irregular in shape and had items stored in the periphery.

1. The plaintiff’s statement of claim does not clearly enunciate his case, but in essence he alleges:

1.    The…