Hastie v the Commissioner for Fire Service - [1996] QSC 49

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

No. 1889 of 1992

Before the Hon Justice White

[Hastie v. The Commissioner for Fire Service & Ors]

BETWEEN:

GEOFFREY DAVID HASTIE
Plaintiff

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FIRE SERVICE formerly
the METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE BOARD)

First Defendant

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FIRE SERVICE (formerly
the REDCLIFFE FIRE BRIGADE BOARD)

Second Defendant

AND:

JOHN JAMES NAPRASNIK
Third Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J

Judgment delivered 29/03/1996

CATCHWORDS: PERSONAL INJURY - liability - fireman injured by flying glass - qu. hose on jet mode - quantum - future in the Fire Service.

Counsel:Mr R Trotter for the plaintiff
Mr R Stenson for the defendants

Solicitors:Watts & Company for the plaintiff
Dillons for the defendants

Hearing dates: 14, 15 March 1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

No. 1889 of 1992

[Hastie v. The Commissioner for Fire Service & Ors]

BETWEEN:

GEOFFREY DAVID HASTIE
Plaintiff

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FIRE SERVICE formerly
the METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE BOARD)

First Defendant

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FIRE SERVICE (formerly
the REDCLIFFE FIRE BRIGADE BOARD)

Second Defendant

AND:

JOHN JAMES NAPRASNIK
Third Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J

Judgment delivered 29/03/1996

The plaintiff is a 54 year old married man who sustained personal injury on 13 June 1990. He was and is employed as a fire officer by the first defendant. In the course of his employment whilst attending a house fire at Redcliffe he was struck on the neck by flying glass from the window of the house and sustained serious injury. Both liability and quantum are in issue.
Liability
The Redcliffe Fire Brigade responded to a call at 3.45am to attend a fire in a boarding house situated on Marine Parade, Redcliffe. The third defendant, a fireman in the service of the Redcliffe Fire Brigade Board, the second defendant, and Acting Substation Officer Idle arrived at the scene and noted that the high-set timber house was well alight. The third defendant connected a hose to the water supply, put on breathing apparatus and proceeded with his hose upstairs. The blaze had commenced on the ground floor level of the dwelling and this was attended to by Officer Idle. The third defendant checked that no occupants remained in the house, opened windows and dealt with the fire. Photographs (exhibit 9) taken by the Police Service in the daylight following the fire show the upstairs part of the house to have sustained little overt fire damage. The damage seems to be confined to sooty discolouration of walls particularly around the front facing windows. Downstairs appears to have sustained severe damage from the fire. The third defendant said that there was smoke billowing within the house when he arrived. It seems that he fairly quickly had his part of the fire under control and then started to damp down "hot spots". Damping down is a term used within the Fire Service which occurs once the initial…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hastie v the Commissioner for Fire Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1996] QSC 49
Decision Date: 29 March 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard a case between Geoffrey David Hastie and The Commissioner for Fire Service (formerly the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Board), The Commissioner for Fire Service (formerly the Redcliffe Fire Brigade Board), and John James Naprasnik. Hastie, a 54-year-old fire officer, sustained serious injuries when he was struck on the neck by flying glass from a window while attending a house fire in Redcliffe on 13 June 1990. The case involved issues of both liability and quantum.

The court found that Hastie's injuries were caused by the negligence of the firemen in the Redcliffe Fire Brigade, as a hose on jet mode was inadvertently directed at the window, breaking it and projecting glass fragments at Hastie. The court accepted the evidence of Hastie, Mr. Kurth, and Mr. Clarke, who had extensive experience in firefighting, that a hose on spray mode would not have caused the glass to break and project as it did. The court concluded that the first and second defendants were negligent and awarded damages to Hastie.

The court also considered whether Hastie was provided with adequate protective clothing. Although new helmets and turnout coats had been introduced after the incident, the court found that Hastie had not established that the new equipment would have prevented his injuries.

In terms of damages, the court awarded Hastie $45,000 for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and cosmetic disfigurement. The court also awarded Hastie damages for past and future painting and gardening needs, care provided by his wife, past loss of wages, loss of chance for promotion, and loss of future earning capacity. The total amount awarded to Hastie was $154,322.

Orders