Lambert v Warwick Credit Union Ltd

[1999] QCA 514

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Lambert v Warwick Credit Union Ltd [1999] QCA 514
PARTIES:	SHARON CAROLYN MICHELLE LAMBERT (plaintiff/appellant) v WARWICK CREDIT UNION LTD (ACN 087 651 116) (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 112 of 1999 DC No 767 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 1999
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 November 1999
JUDGES:	Pincus and Thomas JJA, Atkinson J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE - PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE – SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE – appellant fell while walking down wet ramp – whether independent contractor who resurfaced ramp at fault - whether evidence showed that fall was caused by surface not meeting requisite Australian standard
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE – RES IPSA LOQUITUR – whether doctrine applicable
COUNSEL:	Mr K D Dorney QC, with him Mr M J Taylor for the appellant Mr W Sofronoff QC, with him Mr L Stephens for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Patrick T Murphy (Brisbane) as town agents for Peter Wallace & Company (Redcliffe) for the appellant Phillips Fox for the respondent

1. THE COURT: This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in a personal injuries case. The appellant fell while walking down a ramp, which was then wet from rain, on the respondent's premises. Her case as pleaded was that the ramp should have been covered to protect it from the rain, that steps should have been provided, that there should have been a warning of the dangers inherent in the ramp and that the respondent failed to ensure that the ramp was not too slippery. As litigated the case involved only the last issue – the question of slipperiness.

2. It was common ground that the respondent had engaged a Mr P H Steketee to apply to the ramp a surface which was supposed to make a fall due to slipping unlikely. The argument advanced on appeal was based on the proposition that Steketee had done the work inadequately. Mr Dorney QC, who led Mr Taylor for the appellant, explained that if that were established then a question arose whether the respondent was liable in damages for the consequences of Steketee's negligence, he being not an employee but an independent contractor. When Mr Dorney QC finished his argument on the issue of Steketee's fault the Court decided to hear counsel for the respondent Mr Sofronoff QC, who led Mr Stephens, on that point. The decision of the appeal was then reserved.

3. There was no finding made below that Steketee was at fault; nor was there, as Mr Dorney pointed out, any finding to the contrary. Steketee gave evidence below and the impression gained from reading his cross-examination is that there it was not being contended that Steketee was personally to blame for the appellant's injury. Nevertheless, we are invited to hold him to blame, on the basis of evidence which is said to justify that conclusion.

4. The appellant's fall occurred…