Humble v Hooper Motor Co Pty Ltd - [2000] WADC 109

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: HUMBLE -v- HOOPER MOTOR CO PTY LTD & ANOR [2000] WADC 109

CORAM: WISBEY DCJ

HEARD: 19 APRIL 2000

DELIVERED : 28 APRIL 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 1784 of 1999

BETWEEN: GREGORY HUMBLE
Plaintiff
AND
HOOPER MOTOR CO PTY LTD
Defendant
SHIRE OF BUSSELTON
Third Party

Catchwords:

Torts - Joint or several tortfeasors - Contribution - Liability in respect of "same damage" - Whether third party caused same injury

Legislation:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence & Joint Tortfeasors) Act 1947 s7(1)(c)

Result:

Application allowed and third party notice struck out

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     No Appearance
Defendant:     Mr J R Criddle
Third Party                   :     Mr P McCann

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     No Appearance
Defendant:     J R Criddle
Third Party                   :     Phillips Fox

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd v Steel Mains Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 323
Mahoney v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd (1985) A Tort Rep 80-320

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

WISBEY DCJ: On 5 May 1999 Gregory Humble (the plaintiff) issued a writ against his employer Hooper Motor Co Pty Ltd (the defendant) claiming damages for personal injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment with the defendant in or about June 1995.
In the statement of claim filed 10 June 1999 the plaintiff alleged that in or about June 1995, whilst in the course of his employment as a motor mechanic/assistant service manager, he suffered severe back pain whilst carrying out mechanical repairs to vehicles positioned on a hoist in the workshop.
The injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff are particularised in para 7 of the statement of claim as:
(a)large central L5/S1 disc protrusion;
(b)severe lumbar back pain (a symptom not an injury);
(c)disc bulge at L4/5 level.
The plaintiff claimed that the injuries truncated his social and vocational activities.
In the defence filed 2 July 1999 the defendant denied negligence; admitted that the plaintiff sustained a disability entitling him to benefits pursuant to the Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981; and otherwise put the plaintiff to the proof of injury, loss and damage. It is to be noted that the pleading does not deny that the plaintiff did not sustain the injuries alleged in the statement of claim, or suggest that there was a recurrence or aggravation of a pre‑existing condition.
On 1 July 1999 the defendant filed and served a third party notice to the Shire of Busselton (the third party) claiming contribution or indemnity pursuant to s7(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence & Joint Tortfeasors) Act 1947. The notice asserted that on 6 July 1992, whilst in the employ of the third party, the plaintiff "suffered an injury to his lumbar spine". The notice then asserted that "the Third Party is a tortfeasor which, if sued by the plaintiff, would have been liable to him for the same damage as that allegedly suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's alleged negligence". There…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Humble v Hooper Motor Co Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WADC 109
Decision Date: 28 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Humble v Hooper Motor Co Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Humble, and the defendant, Hooper Motor Co Pty Ltd, over liability for damages caused by a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered injuries as a result of a collision between the defendant's vehicle and another vehicle, driven by a third party. The plaintiff sought damages from the defendant, and the defendant sought contribution from the third party under section 46(1) of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the third party's liability to the plaintiff was for the "same damage" as that for which the defendant was liable. The court needed to determine whether the third party's liability was for the same injury that the plaintiff had suffered and whether the defendant could seek contribution from the third party. The court also needed to consider the meaning of "same damage" in the context of joint or several tortfeasors.

The court held that the third party's liability was not for the "same damage" as that for which the defendant was liable. The court found that the third party's liability was for a different injury that the plaintiff had suffered, and therefore, the defendant was not entitled to contribution from the third party. The court held that the term "same damage" referred to the same injury or harm caused by the tortfeasors, and not to the same event or occurrence. The court also held that the defendant's liability was joint and several, meaning that the plaintiff could recover the full amount of damages from either tortfeasor.

The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the meaning of "same damage" in the context of joint or several tortfeasors and the circumstances in which contribution may be sought. The court's decision also highlights the importance of carefully considering the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff in determining liability and contribution.

Orders