Morris v Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd

Case [2023] QDC 195

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morris v Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QDC 195

PARTIES:

SHAWN WILLIAM MORRIS

(plaintiff)

v
EVOLUTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PTY LTD
ABN 64 109 656 233

(first defendant)

AND

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD3299 of 2020

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 October 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

14-17 March 2023, 11 April 2023

JUDGES:

Jarro DCJ

ORDER:

The claim is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY – GENERALLY – where the first defendant employed the plaintiff as a traffic controller – where the first defendant was contracted to provide workers to the second defendant – where the plaintiff was subject to the instructions of the second defendant who had operational control of the worksite – where the plaintiff injured himself by tripping over a raised section of roadway while undertaking work duties – whether the first defendant employer breached its duty of care by failing to have a safe system of work against a foreseeable risk

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY – GENERALLY – where the second defendant was the principal contractor of the worksite and had operational control over the plaintiff – whether the second defendant breached its duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of a foreseeable risk

LEGISLATION:

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003, s 305B, s 305C, s 305D(1), s 305F(2), s 305G, s 305H(1)(f), s 305H(1)(a)
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, sch 9

CASES:

S J Sanders Pty Ltd v Schmidt [2012] QCA 358
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Knott v The Withcott Hotel [2015] QDC 314
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Rudd v Starbucks Coffee Company (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 232
Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29
Strong v Woolworths (2012) 245 CLR 182
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard [2009] NSWCA 167
Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 304
Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 293
Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) 156 CLR 7
State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Brear v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 388

COUNSEL:

R Morgan for the plaintiff
H Berghofer for the first defendant
AP Collins for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
BT Lawyers for the first defendant
Carter Newell Lawyers for the second defendant

  1. At about midday on 3 August 2018, then 50-year-old traffic controller Shawn Morris fractured both of his shoulders when he was working at a traffic site in Underwood after he tripped over a raised section of bitumen whilst carrying six traffic cones.  Mr Morris now seeks to recover damages for personal…

Continue reading Morris v Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Morris v Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 195
Case
[2023] QDC 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morris v Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd involved a claim for negligence against two defendants. The plaintiff, employed by the first defendant as a traffic controller, was working on a site controlled by the second defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he tripped over a raised section of roadway while performing his duties, and that this was due to the defendants' failure to provide a safe working environment. The central legal issue was whether the first defendant, as the plaintiff's employer, breached its duty of care by not implementing a safe system of work against the foreseeable risk of tripping hazards. Additionally, the court had to determine if the second defendant, as the principal contractor with operational control of the site, breached its duty of care by not warning the plaintiff about the foreseeable risk.

The court found that the first defendant, as the employer, did not breach its duty of care. It was held that the first defendant had taken reasonable steps to ensure a safe working environment, and the risk of tripping was not foreseeable under the circumstances. Furthermore, the court determined that the second defendant, who had operational control over the worksite, also did not breach its duty of care. The second defendant had implemented safety measures, and the plaintiff's injury was not due to any failure on its part. The court concluded that both defendants had acted responsibly and within their scope of duty.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against both defendants. The court held that the defendants had fulfilled their obligations to ensure a safe working environment and had not breached any duty of care owed to the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff's claim for negligence was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

The claim is dismissed

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.