McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McDermott & Ors  v Robinson Helicopter Company [2014] QSC 34

PARTIES:

GRAHAM JAMES McDERMOTT

(first plaintiff)

JUANITA CAROL McDERMOTT

(second plaintiff)

NTB PASTORAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD

(third plaintiff)

v

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY

(first defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 4573 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2012 – 21 September 2012; 20 May 2013 – 12 June 2013; Judgment delivered 28 March 2014.

JUDGE:

Justice Peter Lyons

ORDER:

1. The claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DANGEROUS AND INJURIOUS THINGS, ETC – BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE – where the plaintiff was seriously injured in a helicopter accident – where the first defendant was the manufacturer of the helicopter and the helicopter Maintenance Manual – where the plaintiff alleged that the accident and its consequences were caused by the first defendant’s negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the Maintenance Manual provided an adequate inspection procedure to detect the cause of the accident – where the first defendant alleged that the Maintenance Manual provided for all appropriate and adequate inspection procedures – whether the Maintenance Manual was adequate to prevent the cause of the accident.

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER OR IMPORTERS FOR DEFECTIVE GOODS – where the plaintiff was seriously injured in a helicopter accident – where the first defendant was the manufacturer of the helicopter and the helicopter Maintenance Manual – where the plaintiff alleged that the instructions relating to inspections in the Maintenance Manual were inadequate – where the plaintiff alleged that those inadequacies rendered the Maintenance Manual and the helicopter defective – where the plaintiff alleged that those defects caused the plaintiff to suffer damage and loss – whether the helicopter and/or the Maintenance Manual had a “defect”, for the purposes of s 75AD and s 75AE of the Trade Practices Act.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 75AB, s 75AC, s 75AD, s 75AE, s 75AI, s 75 AN

Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] ATPR 42-014, considered

Merk Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson (2011) 196 FCR 145, considered

COUNSEL:

W Sofronoff QC, with M Eliadis and C George, for the plaintiffs

G Newton QC (September 2012), R Bain QC (May-June 2013), with M Hickey, for the first defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiffs

CLS Lawyers for the first defendant

1. PETER LYONS J:  Mr McDermott, the first plaintiff, was seriously injured in a helicopter accident on 30 May 2004.  The first defendant (Robinson) was the manufacturer of the helicopter.  The plaintiffs have sued Robinson and a number of other defendants.  The claims against the other defendants have been settled. 

1. The claims against Robinson raise issues both of liability and quantum.  The trial was conducted in two stages.  The first was intended to deal with issues relating…