Humphries v Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd

Case [2015] QDC 323

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Humphries v Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd and another [2015] QDC 323

PARTIES:

BRETT ANTHONY HUMPHRIES
(Plaintiff)

AND

DOWNS EARTHMOVING PTY LTD
(First Defendant)

AND

COOLOOLA SECURITY PTY LTD trading as DARLING DOWNS SECURITY (ABN 28 091 393 449)
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

3580 of 2014

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16, 17, 18 November 2015

JUDGE:

Bowskill QC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the defendants

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – Dispute as to liability and quantum – Plaintiff employed as security patrol officer by second defendant, which was engaged to provide security patrol services at the premises occupied by the first defendant – Plaintiff injured ankle when tripping and falling on concrete embankment - Scope of the duty of care owed by the first defendant, as occupier, to the plaintiff – Relevance of the relationship between the parties to the judgment about what reasonableness required of the first defendant – Whether plaintiff took reasonable care for his own safety - Whether a reasonable employer in the position of the second defendant would have taken precautions in relation to the risk of injury – Quantum – Whether the plaintiff’s earning capacity diminished as a result of accident caused injury.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 305B, 305C, 305D, 305H, 306J
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld)

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Davis v Nolras [2005] NSWCA 379
Erickson v Bagley [2015] VSCA 220
Ilvariy Pty Ltd v Sijuk [2011] NSWCA 12
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
Kennedy v Queensland Alumina Ltd [2015] QSC 317
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Minogue v Rudd [2013] NSWCA 345
Nichols v Curtis [2010] QCA 303
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) 156 CLR 7
Port Macquarie Hastings Council v Mooney [2014] NSWCA 156
Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98
Thompson v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234
Turner v South Australia (1982) 42 ALR 669
Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Takacs (2008) 174 IR 328
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316

COUNSEL:

AD Stobie for the Plaintiff  

A Collins for the First Defendant

EJ Williams for the Second Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Turner Freeman for the Plaintiff

Carter Newell for the First Defendant

Jensen McConaghy for the Second Defendant

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff was formerly employed by the second defendant (Darling Downs Security) as a security guard.  The first defendant (Downs Earthmoving) had engaged the services of Darling Downs Security, by contract, to provide security services at its premises at 4 Rocla Court, Toowoomba (the premises).  In the early hours of 9 April 2013, the…

Continue reading Humphries v Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Humphries v Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 323
Case
[2015] QDC 323
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Humphries v Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Humphries, sought compensation for injuries sustained while employed as a security patrol officer by Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd, a company contracted by the first defendant to provide security services at their premises. Humphries claimed that he was injured after tripping and falling on a concrete embankment while on duty. The dispute encompassed questions of liability and the quantum of damages. The court had to determine the duty of care owed by the first defendant, as the occupier of the premises, to the plaintiff, considering the nature of their relationship. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether Humphries exercised reasonable care for his own safety and whether Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd, acting as a reasonable employer, should have taken precautions against the risk of injury. Additionally, the court was tasked with evaluating the impact of the accident on Humphries' earning capacity.

The court considered the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant, examining whether this relationship influenced the standard of care expected from the occupier. The court found that the first defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as they were not employees of the first defendant but rather contracted through the second defendant. The court also concluded that Humphries did not take reasonable care for his own safety, as the accident occurred due to his own negligence. Regarding the second defendant, the court determined that a reasonable employer in Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd's position would have implemented safety measures, but the plaintiff's actions were the primary cause of the injury. The court further assessed the impact of the accident on Humphries' earning capacity, finding no significant long-term impairment.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the defendants. It found that the first defendant had no duty of care towards Humphries and that Downs Earthmoving Pty Ltd, while potentially liable, was not responsible for the accident due to Humphries' failure to exercise reasonable care. The court held that the plaintiff's earning capacity was not diminished by the accident. Therefore, the court awarded judgment in favour of the defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the defendants

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.