Pascoe v Coolum Resort Pty Ltd

Case [2005] QCA 354

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pascoe v Coolum Resort P/L [2005] QCA 354

PARTIES:

DIANA URSULA PASCOE
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
COOLUM RESORT PTY LTD ACN 010 593 638
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2760 of 2005
DC No 79 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2005

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Keane JJA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed
2. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS FOR ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - STANDARD OF CARE - PARTICULAR PERSONS AND SITUATIONS - OTHER CASES - where the respondent sustained personal injury when she fell in the course of her employment as a housekeeper at the resort operated by appellant - where the respondent had proceeded down a path to where it intersected with a roadway - where the respondent had tripped on the edge of a sizeable depression as she crossed a garden bed adjacent to the roadway - where there was evidence that the existence of the depression had been known to other employees of the appellant and that such depressions were recognised as posing a hazard to the health and safety of persons moving around the resort - whether the learned primary judge was right to conclude that a reasonable person in the position of the appellant would have taken additional steps to reduce the risk of injury posed by the depression to persons such as the respondent

Australian Capital Territory v Badcock [2000] FCA 142; (2000) 169 ALR 585, cited

Castle v Weeks [1999] QCA 450; Appeal No 196 of 1999, 5 November 1999, distinguished

Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005) 79 ALJR 839, applied

Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council [2001] HCA 29; (2001) 206 CLR 512, considered

Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA 214; FUL 115 of 2001, 14 August 2002, distinguished

McLachlan v Purchas [1998] WASCA 350; FUL 28 of 1998, 21 December 1998, distinguished

Phillis v Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65, distinguished

Roman Catholic Bishop of Broome v Watson [2002] WASCA 7; FUL 94 of 2001, 1 February 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

S C Williams QC, with J A McDougall, for the appellant
M Grant-Taylor SC, with D W Thornburgh, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson for the appellant
Schultz Toomey O'Brien Lawyers for the respondent

  1. JERRARD JA:  In this appeal I have read the reasons of Keane JA and the orders proposed by His Honour, and respectfully agree with those reasons and orders.

  1. KEANE JA:  On 30 January 2002, the respondent suffered personal injuries when she fell in the course of her employment as a housekeeper by the appellant at its resort at Coolum.  Her claim for damages…

Continue reading Pascoe v Coolum Resort Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pascoe v Coolum Resort Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 354
Case
[2005] QCA 354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pascoe, a housekeeper employed by Coolum Resort Pty Ltd, sustained personal injuries when she fell while crossing a garden bed adjacent to a roadway at the resort. The fall occurred due to an unaddressed depression at the intersection. Pascoe argued that the resort was negligent in not taking steps to mitigate the risk posed by the depression, which was known to other employees and was recognised as a potential hazard. The court was required to determine whether a reasonable person in the position of the resort would have taken additional steps to reduce the risk of injury.

The court considered several precedents, including Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council, which involved the standard of care owed by a council in relation to a known hazard. The court also referenced Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University, which involved a university's duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to an employee. The court distinguished between cases such as Australian Capital Territory v Badcock, where a council was found liable for failing to address a known hazard, and Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford, where the employer was not held liable for an employee's injury due to an unforeseeable hazard. The court concluded that a reasonable person in the position of the resort would have taken additional steps to address the known hazard of the depression.

The court found that the resort had failed to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of its employees by not addressing the known hazard of the depression. The resort's knowledge of the depression and its potential to cause injury meant that it was reasonably foreseeable that an employee could trip and injure themselves. The court held that the resort was negligent in not taking steps to mitigate this risk. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the resort was ordered to pay Pascoe's costs of the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed and the resort was to pay Pascoe's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis. The court's decision emphasised the importance of employers taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees by addressing known hazards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis

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.