Legal Research
Cases
Hill-Douglas v Beverley

Hill-Douglas v Beverley

Case [1998] QCA 435 18 December 1998

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 435
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 2829 of 1998

Brisbane

Before Pincus JA
Thomas JA
Chesterman J
[Hill-Douglas & Anor v. Beverley]
BETWEEN:
SHOLTO ALBERT SIDNEY HILL-DOUGLAS and ZOE MARY
ELIZABETH HILL-DOUGLAS trading as A E HILL & CO

(Defendants) Appellants

AND:
DALLAS LESLIE BEVERLEY

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 18 December 1998

The appellants (who were the defendants in the action) appeal against a judgment by which
they were found liable to pay the respondent (plaintiff) $488,004.00 damages for personal injuries
he suffered while employed by them. The respondent was a jackaroo and the defendants were the
owners of a property known as “Luthrie”, located about 130 kilometres to the west of Longreach.
The trial judge gave this description of the respondent’s case:
“The plaintiff claims against his ... employers for injuries suffered by him in a motorcycle accident on 10 September 1988. ... He alleges that on the day of the accident and immediately prior to it, he was mounted on a motorbike conducting an inspection of bores and fly traps on the property and was also checking for fly- blown sheep. After visiting a bore ..., he says that he observed fly-blown sheep and set about cutting them out from the flock. He says that whilst engaged in this activity his motorbike ran into a wire fence separating one paddock from another. A strand of wire on the fence struck ... him on the neck causing severe injuries.”
Although some fifteen particulars of negligence were pleaded, the trial judge noted that the
respondent’s case on liability reduced to four allegations:-
(a)         failing to maintain a safe system of work;
(b)        failing to construct or maintain the dividing fence in such a way as to make it
reasonably observable by persons working in close proximity to it on vehicles such
as two wheeled bikes;
(c)         failing to give the plaintiff any instruction or training as to proper or safe methods
of manoeuvring a motorcycle whilst mustering or otherwise working with stock in
close proximity to fences; and
(d)        failing to provide a trained sheep dog or sheep dogs.
When considering the question of liability the trial judge said:
“In the presentation of the case and in submissions the (respondent’s) counsel, appropriately in my view, abandoned reliance on allegations based on the construction, maintenance and marking of the dividing fence.
The principal thrust of the (respondent’s) case was that requiring a jackaroo or stockman to muster or cut out sheep using a motorbike constituted a failure to provide a safe system of work, unless the workman was provided with a suitably trained sheepdog or assistance by another person. The substance of the argument ... was that the unaided task of mustering or cutting out sheep was much more difficult to perform than the same task with the aid of a trained sheepdog or another skilled person. It was…

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 Hill-Douglas v Beverley

Details

AGLC: Hill-Douglas v Beverley [1998] QCA 435
Case: [1998] QCA 435
Decision Date: 18/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hill-Douglas v Beverley, the respondent, a jackaroo employed by the appellant graziers, sustained injuries while riding a motorcycle into a fence. The dispute was brought before the court to determine whether the appellants had breached their duty of care to the respondent by failing to maintain a safe system of work, provide adequate instruction or training, warn of the risks, and assist in the performance of employment tasks. The court was required to assess the nature and scope of the duty to warn, whether the risk was obvious, and if the fence line was adequately identified. The court also needed to determine causation, applying relevant tests, and whether a warning would have been effective. Furthermore, the court had to consider the onus of proof and distinguish the case from Chappel v. Hart (1998) 72 ALJR 1344. Ultimately, the court found that the appellants had breached their duty of care, leading to the respondent's injuries. The causation was established, and the failure to warn was a contributing factor. The court awarded damages to the respondent, reflecting the findings of liability and the extent of the injuries suffered.

Orders