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
COUNSEL:
R Whiteford for the Plaintiff
P Cullinane for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:
Taylors Solicitors for the Plaintiff
DLA Phillips Fox for the Defendant
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)
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
- AGLC
- Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 256
- Case
- [2011] QSC 256
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.