Lynch v Shooters Saloon Bar Pty Ltd - [2006] QCA 63

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lynch v Shooters Saloon Bar P/L [2006] QCA 63

PARTIES:

MICHAEL ARTHUR LYNCH
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
SHOOTERS SALOON BAR PTY LTD ACN 065 770 461 (under external administration)
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7355 of 2005
DC No1157 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DANGEROUS PREMISES – INJURIES TO PERSONS ENTERING PREMISES – WHO IS LIABLE – where appellant stood in a queue outside respondent’s nightclub – where appellant decided not to go into the nightclub and stepped over a rope barrier and the appellant’s right foot was caught in the rope and the appellant dislocated his knee – whether obviousness of risk limited respondent’s duty of care – whether it was reasonable for the respondent to use an alternative barrier other than rope to divide up the walkway – whether respondent liable for appellant’s injury

Lynch v Shooters Saloon Bar Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 233; DC No 1157 of 2001, 4 August 2005, discussed
Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; (2005) 214 ALR 452 discussed

COUNSEL:

D J Kelly for the appellant
S C Williams QC, with P D Lane, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gall Standfield & Smith for the appellant
Barry & Nilsson for the respondent

:de JERSEY CJ I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Williams JA and McMurdo J. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, for those reasons.

WILLIAMS JA: I agree with all that is said by McMurdo J in his reasons for judgment, but wish to add some observations of my own.

It is often reasonable and appropriate for an occupier to erect some form of barrier to regulate ingress and egress of patrons to the premises or to some facility in the premises. Bollards and detachable ropes are regularly used in such situations. One is regularly confronted by the type of system used by the respondent here, or a similar system, when accessing ticketing booths, airport departure facilities and other situations where crowd control is desirable.

The system adopted here by the respondent was such that the height of the rope barrier could be varied depending upon the distance between the bollards. In the instant case the height of the relevant rope was from just above knee height at the lowest point to about hip height where it was attached to the bollards.

The rope was intended to be a barrier and the appellant fully appreciated that it was meant to be a barrier. But there will always be people, like the appellant, who decide to cross such a barrier. Depending upon the height of…

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 Lynch v Shooters Saloon Bar Pty Ltd 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: [2006] QCA 63
Decision Date: 10 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Lynch, against Shooters Saloon Bar Pty Ltd, the respondent, before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant sought damages for injuries sustained outside the respondent's nightclub when his foot got caught in a rope barrier, leading to a dislocated knee. The appellant argued that the respondent was negligent in using a rope barrier instead of a more secure barrier, which could have prevented his injury. The respondent contended that the risk was obvious, and they had no duty to take further precautions.

The court was required to determine if the obviousness of the risk limited the respondent's duty of care and if it was reasonable for the respondent to use an alternative barrier other than rope to divide up the walkway. The court had to examine whether the respondent was liable for the appellant's injury under the principles of negligence, specifically focusing on the foreseeability and reasonableness of the risk.

The court found that the risk was indeed obvious to any reasonable person, and the respondent had taken reasonable steps to warn patrons of the risk by using a rope barrier and signage. The court held that the respondent's duty of care was limited by the obviousness of the risk, and it was reasonable for the respondent to use a rope barrier in this context. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent was not liable for the appellant's injury. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with 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

JERSEY CJ (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Lynch v Shooters Saloon Bar P/L [2006] QCA 63
PARTIES:	MICHAEL ARTHUR LYNCH (plaintiff/appellant) v SHOOTERS SALOON BAR PTY LTD ACN 065 770 461 (under external administration) (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7355 of 2005 DC No1157 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DANGEROUS PREMISES – INJURIES TO PERSONS ENTERING PREMISES – WHO IS LIABLE – where appellant stood in a queue outside respondent’s nightclub – where appellant decided not to go into the nightclub and stepped over a rope barrier and the appellant’s right foot was caught in the rope and the appellant dislocated his knee – whether obviousness of risk limited respondent’s duty of care – whether it was reasonable for the respondent to use an alternative barrier other than rope to divide up the walkway – whether respondent liable for appellant’s injury Lynch v Shooters Saloon Bar Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 233; DC No 1157 of 2001, 4 August 2005, discussed Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; (2005) 214 ALR 452 discussed
COUNSEL:	D J Kelly for the appellant S C Williams QC, with P D Lane, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gall Standfield & Smith for the appellant Barry & Nilsson for the respondent