Legal Research
Cases
Jaenke v Hinton

Jaenke v Hinton

Case [1995] QCA 484 3 November 1995

Negligence

Duty of Care

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 37 of 1995

Brisbane

[Jaenke v. Hinton]

BETWEEN:

KEVIN GEORGE JAENKE

and

SANDRA ELIZABETH JAENKE

(Defendants) Appellants

AND:

TONI HINTON

(Plaintiff) Respondent
Pincus JA
Thomas J
Williams J

Judgment delivered 03/11/1995

Separate reasons for judgment. All concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL ALLOWED. THE APPELLANTS SHOULD HAVE THE TAXED COSTS OF

THE APPEAL AND OF AND INCIDENTAL TO THE ACTION.

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - garden hose left across mown lawn overnight - milk vendor stepped on hose and injured ankle - held home owner not negligent - Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 and Bolton v. Stone (1951) A.C. 850 considered.
Counsel:	Mr W Sofronoff QC and Mr S Doyle for appellants. Mr M Grant-Taylor for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Phillips Fox for appellants. McLaughlin Ivey Woodman for respondent.

Hearing date: 11 September 1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 37 of 1995.

Brisbane

BeforePincus J.A.

Thomas J. Williams J.

[Jaenke v. Hinton]

BETWEEN:

KEVIN GEORGE JAENKE and SANDRA ELIZABETH JAENKE

Appellants

AND:

TONI HINTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 03/11/1995

I have read the reasons of G N Williams J and agree with his Honour’s view that

no breach of the appellant’s duty of care was shown and that the orders his Honour

proposes should be made. I do so for the reasons given by G N Williams J, to which

I wish to add little.

In Inverell Municipal Council v. Pennington [1993] Aust. Torts Reports 81-234,

Meagher JA, in discussing an appeal against a judgment in a negligence case,

suggested that if the primary judge’s view that negligence was proved was correct -

" . . . the legal result would be surprising to a degree, for it would indicate that the law of negligence has travelled such a long way that it has imposed the duties of an insurer on persons in the position of the appellants . . . " (62,410)

His Honour also remarked:

" So long as a duty arises whenever the occurrence of the risk is not fanciful, a duty will arise in every single case. It does not follow that the defendant will be liable in every single case, but it does follow that he will be unless it can be proved that to avoid the risk will be wholly unreasonable ". (62,410)

In the same case Mahoney JA, referring to the reasons given by Mason J in The

Council of the Shire of Wyong v. Shirt (1980) 146 C.L.R. 40, expressed the view, in

effect, that before that judgment it had been -

" . . . believed by some that once a risk of injury was relevantly foreseeable and if that risk was not so far fetched or remote that it could properly be put aside, then there was a duty upon the defendant to remove or neutralise that risk ". (62,401)

Mahoney…

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.

Continue reading Jaenke v Hinton

Details

AGLC: Jaenke v Hinton [1995] QCA 484
Case: [1995] QCA 484
Decision Date: 3/11/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Jaenke v Hinton involved a milk vendor, Jaenke, who alleged negligence against the homeowner, Hinton, for leaving a garden hose across a mown lawn overnight. Jaenke stepped on the hose and injured his ankle. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the homeowner owed a duty of care to the milk vendor to ensure the garden hose did not pose a risk of harm. The court considered whether the risk was foreseeable and whether it was reasonable to take precautions against that risk under the circumstances.

The court analysed the principles of negligence, drawing on precedents such as Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt and Bolton v. Stone. The court held that the homeowner was not negligent, as the risk of injury from stepping on a garden hose was not of a kind that the law imposes a duty to guard against. The court reasoned that the risk was not sufficiently significant to warrant a duty of care. It was also noted that the milk vendor could have taken precautions himself by looking where he was stepping. The court ultimately concluded that the homeowner did not breach any duty of care owed to the milk vendor.

The court dismissed the milk vendor's claim for damages. The decision reinforces the principles of duty of care and reasonable foreseeability in negligence claims, particularly in relation to minor risks. The outcome emphasised the importance of considering the balance between the foreseeability of a risk and the burden of taking precautions to prevent it.

Orders