Miles v Brisbane City Council - [2010] QDC 501

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Miles v Brisbane City Council [2010] QDC 501

PARTIES:

RICHARD KENNETH MILES
(Plaintiff)

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 1105/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING
COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11-12 October 2010 (Submissions closed 25 October 2010)

JUDGE:

R Jones DCJ

ORDER:

1.	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $ 103,733.00 as damages.
2.	I will hear from the parties in respect of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIABILITY AT COMMON LAW FOR INJURY AT WORK
– CAUSATION AND FORESEEABILITY – where plaintiff
was employed by the defendant as a bus driver – where
plaintiff working alone at night had to leave parked bus –
defendant’s policy was that when bus drivers left bus they
had to take with them the bus cash box – plaintiff victim of
attempted armed robbery – incident took place in overgrown
and poorly lit area surrounding bus driver restroom facilities
– where as consequence of assault plaintiff suffered personal
injuries including psychological sequelae in the form of post
traumatic stress disorder – whether the risk of injury to
plaintiff was foreseeable – DAMAGES – pain, suffering and
loss of amenity – economic loss.

TORTS – Negligence – essentials of action for negligence – employer and employee – duty of employer

Anderson v Morris Wools Mills Pty Ltd (1965) Qd R 65
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina(1986) 160 CLR 301
Coca Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer & Ors (2006)
Aust Torts Reports 81-834, [2006] NSWCA 45.
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839,
[2005] HCA 14.
English v Rogers [2005] NSWCA 327
Fraser v State Transport Authority (1985) 39 SASR 57
Higgins v B & J Carriers (2000) QDC 443
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Nelson v John Lysaght (aus) ltd (1975) 132 CLR 201
Nichols v Telstra Corporation Ltd & Anor (2007) QDC 340
O’Doughty v Gold Coast City Council (2008) QDC 195
Sapwell v Lusk & Anor (2010) QSC 344
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316
White v Calstores Pty Ltd (2006) QCA 535
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt(1980) 146 CLR 40

COUNSEL:

Mr L. Stephens for the plaintiff
Mr M.X. Keogh for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Roberts and Kane for the plaintiff
Brisbane City Legal Practice for the defendant

This case is concerned with a claim by the plaintiff, Richard Miles, for personal injuries and consequential loss and damage suffered by him as a consequence of an attempted armed robbery. It is alleged against the defendant, the Brisbane City Council, that these injuries were caused by its negligence and/or breach of contract of employment with the plaintiff.

Background

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a bus driver. On 28 June 2006, in the course of his employment, the plaintiff was working a shift which commenced at 11…

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 Miles v Brisbane City 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: [2010] QDC 501
Decision Date: 21/12/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miles v Brisbane City Council involved the plaintiff, Miles, who was employed by the defendant, Brisbane City Council, as a bus driver. Miles was working alone at night when he was required to leave his parked bus. This incident led to a personal injury and subsequent claim for damages against his employer. The Brisbane Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Council was liable for the injuries sustained by Miles under the principles of causation and foreseeability.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Brisbane City Council could be held liable for the injuries suffered by Miles. This hinged on whether the Council could have reasonably foreseen the risk of injury to Miles when he left his parked bus and whether the injury was a direct consequence of the employment conditions. The court had to consider the principles of vicarious liability and whether the risk of injury was inherent in the nature of Miles' employment as a bus driver, particularly when working alone at night.

The court concluded that the Brisbane City Council was indeed liable for the injuries sustained by Miles. It found that the risk of injury was foreseeable and that the Council should have implemented measures to protect Miles while he was working alone at night. The court reasoned that leaving a bus driver alone in potentially hazardous conditions was a breach of the employer's duty of care. Consequently, the court awarded damages to Miles in the sum of $103,733.00. The court also noted that further submissions would be heard regarding the costs associated with the litigation.

The court’s judgment mandated that the Brisbane City Council pay the plaintiff $103,733.00 in damages. Additionally, the court invited the parties to provide submissions on the allocation of costs. This case underscores the importance of employers ensuring workplace safety, particularly in high-risk scenarios such as working alone at night.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $ 103,733.00 as damages.

I will hear from the parties in respect of 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.