Morris v D J Matheson Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morris v D J Matheson Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QDC 406

PARTIES:

DAVID CHARLES MORRIS

Plaintiff

v

D J MATHESON PTY LTD

Defendant

DAVID CHARLES MORRIS

Plaintiff

v

WARREN THATCHER

Defendant

FILE NO/S:

D122/1999, D44/2000 Maryborough
D2520/2003, D2522/2003 Brisbane

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24, 25 July;  26 September; 19 November 2003

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment that the defendant D J Matheson Pty Ltd pay the plaintiff $64,198.  Judgment that the defendant Warren Thatcher pay the plaintiff $169,689.

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Injury of employee – Liability of employer – whether plaintiff suffered real injuries – consideration of medical evidence – damages assessed.

COUNSEL:

J R Webb for the plaintiff
J S Miles and A S Mellick for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Suthers Lawyers for the plaintiff
Bell Dixon Butler for the defendants.

1. These actions arose out of two separate incidents from which the plaintiff claims to have suffered injury in the course of his employment as a result of the negligence of his employer, in each case a different employer.  Both incidents are alleged to have caused injury, or an aggravation of a pre-existing injury, to the right leg of the plaintiff.  Initially in both actions liability and quantum were in issue.  After I viewed the site of the first incident however, it appeared to me obvious that there had been failure on the part of the employer to provide a safe means of access to the workplace, and ultimately counsel for the defendants conceded that:  p.50.  In the action against D J Matheson Pty Ltd, which arises from what I shall refer to as the first incident, negligence was then not disputed although causation and quantum remained in issue:  p.67.  In the action against Thatcher, concerning what I shall refer to as the second incident, liability and quantum remained in issue.  The first incident was on 14 November 1996;  the second on 21 April 1997.

Background

1. In order to understand the significance of these incidents, and the various parties’ allegations in relation to them, it is necessary to say something about the background of the plaintiff, and his previous history of injury to the right leg.  The plaintiff was born on 2 December 1946 at Maryborough, was educated to Year 10, and since leaving school has essentially been employed as a labourer:  Exhibit 20 para 1.  In about 1991 in the course of his work he was felling a tree.  The tree when it fell came towards him and a piece of equipment to some extent, and he tried to push it way, and in the process may have put some stress or twisting pressure on his right knee.  He felt something pop there and suffered pain at the back of it.  He had to rest for a time before he was able to continue to work, and consulted a GP who referred him to Dr Khursandi, an orthopaedic…