Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd

Case [2011] QSC 256


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd  [2011] QSC 256

PARTIES:

Phillip William Hughes

(Plaintiff)

v

Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd

(First Defendant)

And

North Goonyella Coal Mine Pty Ltd

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 65 of 2010 & 165/09

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Bundaberg

HEARING DATE:

27, 28 July 2011.

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $550,128.11

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – Whether Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in deciding to step over a low slung chain.

DAMAGES — Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort — Measure of damages — Personal injuries — General principles — Future Economic Loss – Future Treatment Costs

Coal Mining Health and Safety Act 1999 (Qld)

Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld),

Anodising & Aluminium Finishers v Coleman [1999] QCA 467

Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649

Bathis v Startrack Express & Ors [2009] QSC 331

Bugge v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 227

Corkery & Ors v Kingfisher Bay Resort Village Pt Ltd & Anor [2010] QSC 161

Craddock v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management) Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 133

Husband v Hikari (No 42) Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 398

Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549

Linsell v Robson [1976] 1 NSWLR 789

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

McLean v Tedman (1984) 58 ALJR 541

Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 99

Reck v Queensland Rail [2005] QCA 228

Thomas v O’Shea (1989) ATR 80-251

Vandeloo v Waltons Ltd [1976] VR 77

Van Velzen v Wagener (1975) 10 SASR 549

COUNSEL:

R Whiteford for the Plaintiff

P Cullinane for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Taylors Solicitors for the Plaintiff

DLA Phillips Fox for the Defendant

  1. McMEEKIN J:  Mr Phillip William Hughes suffered an injury to his left arm on 19 August 2006 in the course of his employment with the defendant, Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd. North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd was his host employer and the occupier of the site where his injury occurred. He brings action against both entities alleging breach of duty both at common law and under statute[1] and claiming damages. On the pleadings the liability of both defendants and the quantum of damages are in issue, and there are contribution proceedings between the defendants.

    [1]Coal Mining Health and Safety Act 1999 (Qld)

  1. Mr Cullinane, for the defendants, explained at the commencement of the trial that the two defendants had reached some accommodation, and at the end of the evidence conceded that the plaintiff had made out his case on liability. By the end of the trial the only issues of significance were:

    (a)        Whether, and if so to what extent, the plaintiff should be held contributorily negligent; and

    (b)        In what amount damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life, future economic loss and future…

Continue reading Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 256
Case
[2011] QSC 256
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in the installation of a low slung chain, which resulted in the plaintiff suffering injuries. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff sought compensation for damages, including future economic loss and future treatment costs. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in stepping over the chain.

The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in deciding to step over the chain and whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's future economic loss and future treatment costs. The court held that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in deciding to step over the chain, as it was reasonable for the plaintiff to assume that the chain was at a safe height. The court also held that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's future economic loss and future treatment costs, as these were foreseeable consequences of the defendant's negligence.

The court found that the plaintiff had suffered significant injuries as a result of the defendant's negligence, including a fractured femur and a broken wrist. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $550,128.11, which included compensation for future economic loss, future treatment costs, and pain and suffering. The court held that the defendant was liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages, as the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in causing the accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $550,128.11

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.