Hillcoat v Keymon

[2002] QSC 23

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hillcoat v Keymon & Anor [2002] QSC 023

PARTIES:

GRAHAM CHARLES HILLCOAT
(plaintiff)
v
KEYMON PTY LTD ACN 010 624 245
(first defendant)
PERPETUAL TRUSTEES QUEENSLAND LIMITED
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S 662 of 1995

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 – 28 September 2001

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Judgment be given for the defendant against the plaintiff

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – liability for negligence of others – non-delegable duties – Pl/licensee injured when faulty lift collapsed – commercial premises – whether landlord in control of premises – special vulnerability of plaintiff – renovations conducted by tenant – negligent construction of lift device – whether owner owed non-delegable duty to ensure safety of premises – damages assessed.

Property Law Act 1974, s 121(2)
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989, s 6, s 18, s 23

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520
Cavalier v Pope [1906] AC 428
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 75 ALJR 1
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 75 ALJR 164
Meyers v Easton (1878) 4 VLR 283
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313
Percy v Central Control Financial Services Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 226
W D & H O Wills (Australia) Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1998) 43 NSWLR 338; State Rail Authority of New South Wales v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 338

COUNSEL:

G R Mullins for the plaintiff
S C Williams QC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Roche for the plaintiff
Gadens Lawyers for the defendant

PHILIPPIDES J:

The Plaintiff’s Claim

1. This is an action for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff on 2 May 1992 at the Queens Hotel at Maryborough as a result of the collapse of a lift device which the plaintiff used in order to travel from the ground floor of the premises to the first floor. 

1. At the hearing of the trial, it was agreed that at all material times the first defendant was the owner of the Queens Hotel and that the action should proceed only against that defendant.  It is therefore convenient to refer to that party as “the defendant”.

1. It is not in dispute that the defendant had leased the hotel to Venacorp Pty Ltd (“Venacorp”) for a period of 10 years from 1991, that Venacorp conducted the business of a hotelier on the premises and that a Mr French was a director of Venacorp.

1. The plaintiff alleged in his Statement of Claim that:

(a)        at the time he sustained the injuries, the plaintiff was engaged by Venacorp as a licensee of the hotel and acted as a resident caretaker of the premises;

(b)        at the time the injuries were sustained, the premises were the subject of renovations which were being carried out by the lessee,…