Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council - [2007] QCA 134

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134

PARTIES:

SCOTT RODERICK LEYDEN
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6211 of 2006
DC No 4380 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2007

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Mackenzie and Helman JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Mackenzie J and Helman J concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed
2. Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – LOCAL AUTHORITIES – where the respondent created BMX jumps – where there was unauthorised alteration of the jumps by a third party – whether the local authority owed the appellant a duty of care

NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – GENERALLY – where there was a system of council inspection in place – whether the duty of care was breached

NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – GENERALLY – whether the breach caused the harm

NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – MATERIALITY OF PLAINTIFF’S AGE – whether the appellant contributed to his injuries

NEGLIGENCE – MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES – OTHER DEFENCES – where the appellant was 15 years old at the time of injury – whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied

Latham v R Johnson & NephewLtd (1913) 29 TLR 124, distinguished
Paltidis v The State Council of the Young Men’s Christian Association of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 122, applied
Roggenkamp v Bennett (1950) 80 CLR 292, applied Thompson v Bankstown Corporation (1953) 87 CLR 619, distinguished

COUNSEL:

D Kelly, with S Ferrett, for the appellant
R Morgan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Carter Capner Lawyers for the appellant
HBM Lawyers for the respondent

JERRARD JA: This appeal is against a decision in the District Court delivered on 28 June 2006, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant Council for damages for personal injury. The plaintiff suffered that injury on 15 July 1999, when riding a bicycle on a BMX track constructed in May 1999 by the defendant Council on land within Bluebell Park, Caboolture. The plaintiff contended his injuries resulted from the defendant’s negligent breach of a duty owed to him. The learned trial judge held no duty was owed to the plaintiff, and if one was, then the judge upheld a plea of volenti. The judge dismissed the claim with costs.

The track the defendant constructed in May 1999 was U shaped, and began at a starting ramp. There were a couple of mounds in a row, followed by an 180⁰ turn, involving the construction of a berm (a banked turn) to provide some camber, so that the turn could be executed at a faster speed.…

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 Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council 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: [2007] QCA 134
Decision Date: 20 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council, the appellant, Leyden, sought to establish liability against the respondent, Caboolture Shire Council, for injuries sustained while riding a bicycle over a series of BMX jumps constructed by the council. The appellant argued that the council owed a duty of care, which was breached by failing to inspect and maintain the jumps. The central issues before the court were whether the council owed a duty of care, whether this duty was breached, whether the breach caused the appellant's injuries, whether the appellant contributed to his own injuries, and whether the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applied.

The court found that the council did owe a duty of care to the appellant, as it had created the BMX jumps, thereby establishing a special relationship with users of the jumps. The court also held that the duty of care was breached, as the council's system of inspection was inadequate, and the unauthorised alterations to the jumps were not identified. However, the court held that the appellant's age, 15 at the time of the incident, contributed to his injuries and thus constituted contributory negligence. Additionally, the court found that the appellant was fully aware of the risks associated with riding the jumps and had voluntarily assumed those risks, leading to the application of the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.

The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The court held that the council's duty of care was breached, but the appellant's contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk were significant factors in the outcome. The court's decision underscored the importance of adequate inspection and maintenance of public facilities, as well as the impact of contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk in negligence claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs

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.

CITATION:	Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134
PARTIES:	SCOTT RODERICK LEYDEN (plaintiff/appellant) v CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6211 of 2006 DC No 4380 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 April 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 March 2007
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, Mackenzie and Helman JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Mackenzie J and Helman J concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed 2. Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – LOCAL AUTHORITIES – where the respondent created BMX jumps – where there was unauthorised alteration of the jumps by a third party – whether the local authority owed the appellant a duty of care NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – GENERALLY – where there was a system of council inspection in place – whether the duty of care was breached NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – GENERALLY – whether the breach caused the harm NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – MATERIALITY OF PLAINTIFF’S AGE – whether the appellant contributed to his injuries NEGLIGENCE – MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES – OTHER DEFENCES – where the appellant was 15 years old at the time of injury – whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied Latham v R Johnson & NephewLtd (1913) 29 TLR 124, distinguished Paltidis v The State Council of the Young Men’s Christian Association of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 122, applied Roggenkamp v Bennett (1950) 80 CLR 292, applied Thompson v Bankstown Corporation (1953) 87 CLR 619, distinguished
COUNSEL:	D Kelly, with S Ferrett, for the appellant R Morgan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Carter Capner Lawyers for the appellant HBM Lawyers for the respondent