ROBERT RONALD WILKINS AND KAREN WILKINS ATF RR & KL WILKINS TRUST
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
194 of 2017
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:
Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
10 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
3, 4, 5 & 6 June 2019, 23 August 2019
JUDGE:
Morzone QC DCJ
ORDER:
I will give judgment to the plaintiff against the defendant for $191,383.70.1.
.Unless either party applies for a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that the defendant will pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis2.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – whether the defendant breached its duty of care – where pipes protruding on a residual building slab in vicinity of work area present tripping hazard – where the risk was foreseeable – where the risk was not insignificant – where not unduly burdensome to take precautions to avoid risk of injury – where timely inspection of tripping hazards would reduce probability of serious injury – where marking or barricading protruding pipes would reduce probability of serious injury – where warning and reminding of risk in a timely way would reduce risk to the plaintiff – whether defendant’s breach was a necessary condition of the occurrence of injury – where risk not an obvious risk to plaintiff – where no finding of contributory negligence – where defendant is liable for breaching its duty to take precautions against a relevant risk and thereby caused the plaintiff’s injuries – assessment of damages
Legislation Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 305D, 305E, 305F, 305G, 305H, 305I & 305J Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) part 2 schedule 8, 9
[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.
Continue reading Peters v Wilkins Trust
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Peters v Wilkins Trust [2020] QDC 125
Case
[2020] QDC 125
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Peters v Wilkins Trust, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained from tripping over protruding pipes on a residual building slab in the vicinity of the work area. The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached its duty of care and if such breach was a necessary condition of the occurrence of injury. Additionally, the court had to assess the measure of damages awarded to the plaintiff.
The court found that the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid the risk of injury caused by the protruding pipes. The risk was foreseeable and not insignificant, and it was not unduly burdensome for the defendant to take precautions to avoid the risk of injury. The court held that timely inspection of tripping hazards, marking or barricading protruding pipes, and warning and reminding of the risk in a timely way would reduce the probability of serious injury. The risk was not an obvious risk to the plaintiff, and there was no finding of contributory negligence.
The court assessed the damages awarded to the plaintiff, finding the defendant liable for breaching its duty to take precautions against a relevant risk and thereby causing the plaintiff’s injuries. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $191,383.70 in damages, along with the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis unless either party applies for a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
I will give judgment to the plaintiff against the defendant for $191,383.70.1.
.Unless either party applies for a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that the defendant will pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis2.