Pocock v Citi-Steel Pty Ltd - [2018] QDC 81

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pocock v Citi-Steel Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 81

PARTIES:

RAYMOND PAUL POCOCK
(plaintiff)

v

CITI-STEEL PTY LTD (ABN 93 104 209 949)
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BD 2856/16

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11, 12, 13 April 2018

JUDGE:

Judge AJ Rafter SC

ORDER:

Judgment that the defendant pay the plaintiff $120,000.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – where the plaintiff was employed by a third party as a crane truck driver to deliver steel – where the employer trained the plaintiff – where the employer provided the truck and crane – where the employer was in a contractual arrangement with the defendant – where the plaintiff’s employment entailed making deliveries of steel for the defendant – where the defendant controlled the manner of the deliveries – where the plaintiff was injured delivering steel for the defendant – where there was no dispute that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care – where there was a dispute about the nature and scope of the duty of care – whether the duty was personal and non-delegable.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – where the defendant was responsible for loading the steel on the truck – where the defendant controlled the order of deliveries – where the defendant was aware that the steel to be delivered was obstructed by other deliveries – where the defendant was aware that the plaintiff would be required to use the crane to unload the steel – whether the scope of the duty owed by the defendant extended to the creation of a safe system of work in the delivery of the steel.

Law Reform Act 2010 (Qld) s 10
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19, s 267
Beven v Brisbane Youth Service Inc [2016] QSC 163, cited.
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21; [2001] HCA 44, cited.
J Blackwood & Son Steel & Metals Pty Ltd v Nichols (2007) 165 IR 76; [2007] NSWCA 157, discussed.
Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552; [2003] HCA 34, cited.
Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Limited & Ors [2016] QSC 304, discussed.
Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44; [2005] HCA 15, cited.
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672; [1984] HCA 61, cited.
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35, cited.
Love v North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 140, cited.
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1, cited.
Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234; [2005] HCA 19, cited.
TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCA 47

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 Pocock v Citi-Steel Pty Ltd 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: [2018] QDC 81
Decision Date: 10 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pocock v Citi-Steel Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was employed by a third party as a crane truck driver, and the defendant, a steel company. The plaintiff was tasked with delivering steel to various locations, under a contractual arrangement between the defendant and the plaintiff's employer. During one such delivery, the plaintiff was injured, leading to a claim for damages against the defendant, on the basis that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care which it had breached.

The central legal issue before the court was the nature and scope of the duty of care that the defendant owed to the plaintiff. While it was not disputed that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the key question was whether this duty was personal and non-delegable, or whether it could be limited in scope. The court had to determine whether the defendant's duty extended to creating a safe system of work, given that the defendant was responsible for loading the steel onto the truck, controlled the order of deliveries, and was aware that the steel to be delivered was obstructed by other deliveries and that the plaintiff would need to use the crane to unload the steel.

The court found that the defendant owed a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff, which extended to ensuring that a safe system of work was in place for the delivery of steel. The court held that the defendant, by virtue of its control over the loading and delivery process, had a responsibility to create a safe working environment. Given the defendant's knowledge of the obstructed deliveries and the requirement for the plaintiff to use the crane, the court determined that the defendant had breached this duty. The plaintiff was therefore awarded damages in the amount of $120,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment that the defendant pay the plaintiff $120,000.

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.

CITATION:	Pocock v Citi-Steel Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 81
PARTIES:	RAYMOND PAUL POCOCK (plaintiff) v CITI-STEEL PTY LTD (ABN 93 104 209 949) (defendant)
FILE NO:	BD 2856/16
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11, 12, 13 April 2018
JUDGE:	Judge AJ Rafter SC
ORDER:	Judgment that the defendant pay the plaintiff $120,000.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – where the plaintiff was employed by a third party as a crane truck driver to deliver steel – where the employer trained the plaintiff – where the employer provided the truck and crane – where the employer was in a contractual arrangement with the defendant – where the plaintiff’s employment entailed making deliveries of steel for the defendant – where the defendant controlled the manner of the deliveries – where the plaintiff was injured delivering steel for the defendant – where there was no dispute that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care – where there was a dispute about the nature and scope of the duty of care – whether the duty was personal and non-delegable. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – where the defendant was responsible for loading the steel on the truck – where the defendant controlled the order of deliveries – where the defendant was aware that the steel to be delivered was obstructed by other deliveries – where the defendant was aware that the plaintiff would be required to use the crane to unload the steel – whether the scope of the duty owed by the defendant extended to the creation of a safe system of work in the delivery of the steel. Law Reform Act 2010 (Qld) s 10 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19, s 267 Beven v Brisbane Youth Service Inc [2016] QSC 163, cited. Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21; [2001] HCA 44, cited. J Blackwood & Son Steel & Metals Pty Ltd v Nichols (2007) 165 IR 76; [2007] NSWCA 157, discussed. Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552; [2003] HCA 34, cited. Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Limited & Ors [2016] QSC 304, discussed. Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44; [2005] HCA 15, cited. Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672; [1984] HCA 61, cited. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35, cited. Love v North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 140, cited. Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1, cited. Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234; [2005] HCA 19, cited. TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCA 47