Prouten v Chapman - [2020] NSWSC 873

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prouten v Chapman & Anor [2020] NSWSC 873
Hearing dates: 6–13, 28, 29 August 2019
Decision date: 17 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Verdict and judgment for the defendants.
(2) Costs reserved.

Catchwords:
TORTS – negligence – postal worker allegedly injured whilst riding small motorcycle for work – caravan parked on suburban nature strip with bed extended externally – claimed “jolt” suffered by plaintiff due to unexpected presence of extended bed leading to momentary loss of control of motorcycle – rejection of claim on the facts – rejection of claim with regard to breach of duty of care – rejection of claim with regard to causation of claimed injuries – overarching adverse assessment of credit of plaintiff

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5R

Cases Cited:
Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Miller; Miller v Lithgow City Council (2015) 91 NSWLR 752; [2015] NSWCA 320

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michelle Prouten (Plaintiff)
Darren Chapman (Defendant 1)
Megan Chapman (Defendant 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
R de Meyrick & J Mrsic (Plaintiff)
R A Cavanagh SC & O Dinkha (First and second defendants)
Solicitors:
JWK Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McCabe Curwood (First and second defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/4610

Judgment

Introduction

The claim for damages founded on negligence made by Ms Michelle Prouten (the plaintiff) against Mr Darren Chapman and Mrs Megan Chapman (unless greater differentiation is required, the defendants) is based on the following assertions.

Case for plaintiff

On 7 January 2015 (“the date of the accident”), the plaintiff was living in a suburb of Newcastle with her romantic partner, Mr Joseph Green. She was employed by Australia Post as a postal delivery rider/officer. She worked approximately 25 hours a week, and earned approximately $35,000 a year.
Part of her duties was to deliver mail to suburban homes by way of a small, step-through motorcycle. The motorcycle had an engine capacity of 100 cubic centimetres, and weighed, unladen, 80 kg. When its panniers were full with postal items, its total weight was 100 kg. In order to describe the motorcycle, I shall simply refer to it as a “postie bike”, not in order to be informal, but because I believe that that phrase will readily convey to the majority of Australian readers of this judgment the kind of motorcycle under discussion.
The plaintiff had previously worked for many years in the much more demanding and remunerative position of sales representative for a pharmaceutical company. As at the date of the accident, however, she had taken a temporary break from that position. That was originally due to the death of her father, and her desire to be with her family in that difficult time. And in the build up to the death of her father in 2011, she had experienced a few difficult years. In September 2009, she had a close friend pass away from cancer. The following year, another friend committed suicide.…

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.

Continue reading Prouten v Chapman

Details

AGLC: Prouten v Chapman [2020] NSWSC 873
Case: [2020] NSWSC 873
Decision Date: 17 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prouten v Chapman involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a postal worker, and the defendant, regarding an alleged injury sustained by the plaintiff while riding a small motorcycle as part of his employment duties. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered a momentary loss of control and a "jolt" when he unexpectedly encountered a caravan parked on a suburban nature strip with its bed extended externally. He sought compensation for the injuries he claimed to have suffered as a result of this encounter. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the defendant breached a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether this breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, who was the owner of the caravan, was negligent in parking it with the bed extended, which led to the plaintiff's loss of control and subsequent injuries. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that there was no negligence on their part and that the plaintiff's injuries, if any, were not caused by the extended bed of the caravan.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the plaintiff's account of the events leading to his claimed injuries was not credible. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant, as the evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim that the extended bed of the caravan was the cause of his loss of control and injuries. The court also found that even if a breach of duty had been established, it would not have been the cause of the plaintiff's injuries, as the plaintiff's account of the events lacked credibility. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety.

The court made no further orders beyond dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The decision underscores the importance of establishing both a breach of duty of care and causation in a negligence claim, as well as the need for credible evidence to support such claims.

Orders