SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hevilift Limited v Towers [2018] QCA 89
PARTIES:
HEVILIFT LIMITED
(appellant)
v
BRUCE TOWERS
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 13091 of 2016
SC No 180 of 2009DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns – [2016] QSC 267DELIVERED ON:
11 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 June 2017
JUDGES:
Fraser and Philippides JJA and Flanagan J
ORDER:
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the respondent was a helicopter pilot employed by the appellant – where the respondent was piloting a helicopter that crashed killing three of its six passengers and seriously injuring the respondent – where the primary judge accepted the respondent’s case that the respondent encountered a phenomenon where his helicopter was enveloped by thick cloud that appeared to develop instantaneously – where the primary judge found the appellant liable in damages to the respondent for breaching three of the appellant’s duties of care – where the appellant disputed the trial judge’s acceptance of a meteorologist’s evidence that cloud in that region can form at an out of the ordinary speed even compared to other mountainous regions of the world – whether the primary judge erred in coming to that finding – whether there was evidence that the respondent was aware of this phenomenon – whether the primary judge erred in finding the appellant breached their duties of care
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the primary judge found the appellant owed the respondent four relevant duties of care – where the primary judge held that the appellant had breached these four duties but causation was only established in relation to three of these duties of care – where the appellant alleges to have been denied procedural fairness because the duties of care found by the primary judge were not pleaded by the respondent at trial – where the primary judge had raised at trial the reliance on an “arguably unpleaded breach” – where the respondent did not identify any pleading or statement during trial alluding to the third duty of care found by the primary judge – whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness in relation to the primary judge’s finding of the duties of care owed to the respondent
TORTS – MISCELLANEOUS TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL AND OTHER RELATIONS – CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT – where the pleadings alleged a duty of care owed in negligence and contract – where the contract of employment included a term requiring the respondent to comply with all applicable law – where it was accepted that “all applicable law” included the Civil Aviation Rules – where the appellant alleged the duties of care found by the primary judge were incoherent with the…
Continue reading Hevilift Limited v Towers
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hevilift Limited v Towers [2018] QCA 89
- Case
- [2018] QCA 89
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether Hevilift breached its duty of care to the respondent. The court needed to determine whether the primary judge was correct in finding that Hevilift was liable for breaching the duties of care owed to the respondent. The court also needed to consider whether the primary judge was correct in finding that the respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence. The appellant argued that the primary judge erred in finding that Hevilift breached its duties of care and that the respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence.
The court found that the primary judge did not err in finding that Hevilift breached its duties of care. The court found that the primary judge was correct in considering the meteorologist's evidence that cloud in the region can form at an out of the ordinary speed. The court found that the primary judge was also correct in finding that the respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence. The court found that the primary judge was correct in finding that Hevilift breached its duties of care and that the respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence. The court found that the primary judge was also correct in finding that Hevilift was liable for breach of the implied contractual term.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.