JLG Industries Inc v Teetree Pty Ltd

[2001] QDC 331

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JLG Industries Inc v. Teetree Pty Ltd & Anor [2001] QDC 331

PARTIES:

JLG INDUSTRIES INC (Plaintiff)
v.
TEETREE PTY LTD (Defendant)
And
NATIONAL MARINE INSURANCE AGENCY LIMITED (Third Party)

FILE NO/S:

D4867 of 1999

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2001

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment that the defendant pay the plaintiff $176,772 plus costs

CATCHWORDS:

BAILMENT – Duties of Bailee – carrier – goods damaged in transit when trailer overturned – whether bailee has shown absence of negligence

John F. Goulding Pty Ltd v. Victorian Railway Commissioners (1932) 48 CLR 157 - cited
Hobbs v. Petersham Transport Co Pty Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 220 - applied
Morris v. C W Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716 – cited

COUNSEL:

S.C. Derrington for the plaintiff
P.F. Mylne for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Murrell Stephenson for the plaintiff
Wonderley & Hall for the defendant

1. The plaintiff is an international manufacturer of work platforms which are imported into Queensland for sale to a range of customers: p.4.  In December 1998 it sold two articulated boom lifts to O’Donnell Griffin for a total of $139,958 (Exhibit 5), which were to be delivered to Phosphate Hill: p.4.  In the course of being transported there the trailer on which the two units were being carried overturned, and the units were damaged beyond economic repair.  After making allowance for some small salvage recovered (p.5), and some other matters, the defendant’s loss came in total to $142,558 (Exhibit 3), the amount claimed in this action.  Quantum was not actively disputed.  Although the claim relies on breach of contract and negligence as well as breach of duty as bailee for reward, the claim was argued only on the third of these bases. 

The Law

1. It was not disputed that the defendant was the bailee of the goods at the relevant time, and that its duty in respect of them was that of a bailee for reward.  As such it was bound to use due care and diligence to keep the goods safely and to deliver them undamaged.  The standard of care and diligence is that which a careful and vigilant man would exercise in respect of goods of his own of the same kind in similar circumstances:  Hobbs v. Petersham Transport Co Pty Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 220 at 238 per Windeyer J. Such a duty is not broken if the defendant was prevented from delivering the goods by loss or destruction which reasonable care and skill on its part could not have avoided: John F. Goulding Pty Ltd v. Victorian Railway Commissioners (1932) 48 CLR 157 at 166. The onus is on the bailee to show that the loss or damage occurred without any neglect or default or misconduct on the part of itself or on the part of any employee: Morris v. C W Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716 at 726.

1. In