Hirst v Nominal Defendant

Case [2005] QCA 65

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hirst v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 65

PARTIES:

GREGORY WARWICK HIRST
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(defendant/appellant)

GREGORY WARWICK HIRST
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8095 of 2004
Appeal No 8142 of 2004
SC No 7921 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Personal Injury - Liability & Quantum

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2005

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Keane JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.     In each appeal, appeal dismissed
2.     In each appeal, there is no order as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ROAD ACCIDENT CASES - LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES - MISCELLANEOUS CASES - plaintiff police officer - injured when lost control of vehicle while pursuing unidentified car that had been observed exceeding the speed limit -  cars reached speeds of up to 180 kph - pursuit took place at night on single carriageway highway - pursuit involved overtaking other cars - whether the police officer caused the accident rather than the unidentified driver - duties of police officers - whether the defendant was liable in negligence - whether the plaintiff's damages should have been reduced for contributory negligence - to what extent the plaintiff's damages should have been reduced for contributory negligence

LawReformAct 1995 (Qld), s 10
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 2.3, s 3.2

Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112, cited
Enever v The King (1906) 3 CLR 969, cited
Haber v Walker [1963] VR 339, considered
Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146, considered
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506, cited
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, applied
Pallister v Waikato Hospital Board [1975] 2 NZLR 725, cited
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492, cited
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360, cited
Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414, cited
R v K (1993) 118 ALR 596, cited
R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; ex parte Blackburn [1968] 1 All ER 763, cited
Thomson v C (1989) 67 NTR 11, cited
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, cited

COUNSEL:

K N Wilson SC for the Nominal Defendant
M Grant-Taylor SC for Hirst

SOLICITORS:

Hunt & Hunt for the Nominal Defendant
Schultz Toomey O'Brien Lawyers (Mooloolaba) for Hirst

  1. JERRARD JA: In this appeal I have read and respectfully agree with the reasons for judgment and orders proposed by Keane JA and Douglas J. I add only that s 2.3(d) of the Police Service Administrative Act 1990 (Qld) provides that the functions of the police include "the detection of offenders and bringing of offenders to justice".  Mr Hirst was performing that function in the pursuit.

Continue reading Hirst v Nominal Defendant

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hirst v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 65
Case
[2005] QCA 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hirst v Nominal Defendant, the plaintiff, a police officer, was injured in a vehicle accident while pursuing a car that was speeding on a single carriageway highway. The pursuit, which occurred at night, reached speeds of up to 180 kilometres per hour. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, an unidentified driver, was liable in negligence for causing the accident, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff's own actions were the primary cause of the accident. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's damages should be reduced for contributory negligence and to what extent. The court also had to consider the duties of police officers in such situations.

The court considered several legal principles and cases in reaching its decision. It examined the duties of police officers in pursuing suspects and the balance between public safety and individual officer safety. The court also looked at the statutory provisions and common law principles related to contributory negligence and apportionment of damages. The court found that the plaintiff's actions were not negligent but rather an unavoidable consequence of the pursuit. It held that the defendant was liable for the accident and that the plaintiff's damages should not be reduced for contributory negligence.

The court concluded that the pursuit was an inherently dangerous activity that the defendant knowingly engaged in, and that the plaintiff was not negligent in the manner in which he conducted the pursuit. The court found that the plaintiff's actions were reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances, and that the defendant's actions were the primary cause of the accident. The court held that the plaintiff's damages should not be reduced for contributory negligence, and that the defendant was liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages. The appeals were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In each appeal, appeal dismissed

2. In each appeal, there is no order as to 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.