Manning v Taroom Shire Council - [1994] QCA 430

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 430
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	Appeal No. 35 of 1994
Brisbane
Before	Fitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Derrington J.

[Manning v. Taroom Shire Council & ors.]

BETWEEN:

THOMAS ARCHIBALD MANNING

(Plaintiff)

AND:

TAROOM SHIRE COUNCIL

(First Defendant) Respondent

AND:

NOEL RICHARD COTTAM and
ELSA MARY COTTAM
(Second Defendants)

AND:

SUNCORP INSURANCE & FINANCE

(Third Party) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 26/10/94

The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the joint judgment of Pincus J.A. and Derrington J. and need not be repeated. It is regrettable that these issues, which involve questions of fact and degree involving subjective judgments, continue to come before the Court and be argued as though previous cases, decided on their particular circumstances, establish binding legal principles.

There are two questions for decision; logically, although not in the order in which they occur under sub-section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936 as amended, those questions are:

(i) was the plaintiff's injury "caused ... in connection with" [the respondent's] motor vehicle; and

(ii) did the respondent "become legally liable ..." to the plaintiff for damages for such injury "in respect of such motor vehicle"?

The respondent was negligent because its vehicle was parked where the plaintiff had to cross the road, passing in front of the vehicle out of sight of vehicles travelling in the same direction; the respondent's vehicle could, and should, have been parked on the opposite side of the road, facing in the opposite direction, so that the plaintiff could alight from the vehicle, collect the sign and load it into the vehicle without any danger.

The respondent's negligence, i.e. in the parking of the vehicle, was both the cause of the plaintiff's injury and the basis of the respondent's liability. In those circumstances, it seems to me correct to conclude that the respondent became "legally liable ... in respect of [the] motor vehicle" and that the plaintiff's injury was "caused ... in connection with such motor vehicle".

I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	Appeal No. 35 of 1994
Brisbane
[Manning v. Taroom Shire Council]
BETWEEN:

THOMAS ARCHIBALD MANNING

Plaintiff

AND:

TAROOM SHIRE COUNCIL

First Defendant/

Respondent

AND:

NOEL RICHARD COTTAM & ELSA MARY COTTAM

Second Defendants

AND:

SUNCORP INSURANCE & FINANCE

Third Party/

Appellant

Fitzgerald P
Pincus JA
Derrington J

Judgment delivered 26/10/1994

SEPARATE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, PINCUS JA AND DERRINGTON J JOINTLY. ALL CONCURRING AS TO THE ORDER TO BE MADE

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS

CATCHWORDS:	Insurance - compulsory motor vehicle insurance - workman passenger leaving truck to walk in front of it to collect and load road-signs and to truck from other side of road - whether employer's liability in respect of the vehicle - whether injury "caused ... in connection with" the vehicle.
Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 1936 s.…

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 Manning v Taroom 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: [1994] QCA 430
Decision Date: 26/10/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manning v Taroom Shire Council involved a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant council for damages resulting from an accident. The plaintiff was a passenger in a truck owned by the council, which was being driven by a council employee. The plaintiff disembarked from the truck and walked in front of it to collect and load road signs from the other side of the road when the accident occurred. The central issue before the court was whether the council was liable for the plaintiff's injuries under the compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme, and specifically, whether the injury was "caused... in connection with" the vehicle.

The court had to determine if the plaintiff's injury occurred while they were in the process of collecting and loading the road signs, and whether this activity constituted being "in connection with" the vehicle as defined by the insurance legislation. The court considered the nature of the plaintiff's actions and whether they were directly related to the operation of the truck or the work being performed. It also examined the statutory language and previous case law to interpret the scope of "in connection with" the vehicle.

The court found that the plaintiff's injury was indeed "caused... in connection with" the vehicle. It reasoned that the plaintiff was engaged in an activity that was incidental to the purpose of the trip, which was to transport the plaintiff and the road signs. The court held that the council was therefore liable under the compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme for the plaintiff's injuries. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the statutory language and the determination that the plaintiff's actions were sufficiently connected to the operation of the vehicle to be considered within the scope of the insurance coverage.

The court ordered the council to compensate the plaintiff for the damages resulting from the accident, in accordance with the compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme. The plaintiff was entitled to recover for their injuries, as the court found that the injury was "caused... in connection with" the vehicle, thereby establishing the council's liability under the insurance provisions.

Orders