Rigney v Browne - [2004] QSC 265

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rigney v Browne & Anor [2004] QSC 265

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY RIGNEY
(plaintiff)
v
ROBERT INGLE BROWNE
(first defendant)
MARK JAMES NELSON
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 7298 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Personal Injury - Liability & Quantum

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2004; 25 May 2004; 26 May 2004; 3 June 2004

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDERS:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the amount of $464,586.34. 1.

Each of the defendants is entitled to recover contribution from the other to the extent of 50 per cent of the damages. 2.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – IN GENERAL – where plaintiff was injured in a boating collision – where plaintiff and second defendant were asleep at night in the second defendant’s boat which was moored in a river – where the light on the boat had failed – where the boat was struck by a speedboat driven by first defendant – whether the first defendant breached his common law and statutory duty of care – whether the second defendant breached his common law duty of care

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILTY AND DAMAGES – APPORTIONMENT IN PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AND CASES – whether plaintiff contributed to his own injury in failing to ensure that the boat was safely moored

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – whether the first and second defendants should be entitled to recover contribution from the other

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (Cth), r 5, r 6, r 7, r 8, r 9, r 30, r 41
Navigation Act 1912 (Cth)
Transport Operations Marine Safety Act 1994 (Qld), s 10, s 41, s 43
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 1995 (Qld), reg 13, reg 21, reg 93, reg 95, reg 96, reg 181

TheAustralasian Steam Navigation Co v Smith (1886) 7 NSWR 207, applied

COUNSEL:

J A Griffin QC, with R Dickson, for the plaintiff
R W Morgan for the first defendant
R J Douglas SC for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

McDonald Balanda & Associates for the plaintiff
McCullough Robertson for the first defendant
Walsh Halligan Douglas for the second defendant

The plaintiff was injured in a boating collision on 4 February 1998. He was a passenger in a boat which has been described as a dinghy, but was, in fact, a more substantial vessel than the term might imply. At the time the collision occurred, the plaintiff and the second defendant, Mr Nelson, who, it is admitted, was in possession and charge of the boat, were asleep after a night’s fishing. Their dinghy was struck by a speedboat driven by the first defendant, Mr Browne; the plaintiff was thrown into the water and suffered injuries. Liability and quantum are both in…

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 Rigney v Browne

Details

AGLC: Rigney v Browne [2004] QSC 265
Case: [2004] QSC 265
Decision Date: 25 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rigney v Browne involved a collision between a moored boat and a speedboat, resulting in injuries to the plaintiff, Rigney, who was asleep in the moored boat at the time of the incident. The second defendant, Browne, was also in the moored boat, which was not lit due to a failure in its lighting system. The first defendant was the driver of the speedboat that collided with the moored boat. The primary legal issues were whether the first defendant breached his common law and statutory duty of care, whether the second defendant breached his common law duty of care, and if Rigney contributed to his own injury. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the defendants should be entitled to contribution from each other and assess the measure of damages for Rigney's personal injuries.

The court examined the first defendant's duty of care under both common law and statutory obligations. It was found that the first defendant did breach his duty of care by failing to exercise reasonable care while operating the speedboat, particularly given the circumstances of the night-time collision with a moored and unlit boat. The second defendant was also found to have breached his common law duty of care, as he failed to ensure the safety of the boat by not addressing the lighting failure. Rigney was not found to be contributorily negligent as his actions did not contribute to the collision. The court ruled that both defendants were entitled to seek contribution from each other for 50 per cent of the damages awarded.

The court awarded Rigney damages for his personal injuries in the amount of $464,586.34. The judgment allowed each defendant to recover contribution from the other to the extent of 50 per cent of the damages. This comprehensive approach ensured that Rigney received compensation for his injuries while also addressing the complex issues of liability and contribution between the defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the amount of $464,586.34. 1.

Each of the defendants is entitled to recover contribution from the other to the extent of 50 per cent of the damages. 2.

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:	Rigney v Browne & Anor [2004] QSC 265
PARTIES:	TIMOTHY RIGNEY (plaintiff) v ROBERT INGLE BROWNE (first defendant) MARK JAMES NELSON (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 7298 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Personal Injury - Liability & Quantum
DELIVERED ON:	25 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 May 2004; 25 May 2004; 26 May 2004; 3 June 2004
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDERS:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the amount of $464,586.34. 1. Each of the defendants is entitled to recover contribution from the other to the extent of 50 per cent of the damages. 2.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – IN GENERAL – where plaintiff was injured in a boating collision – where plaintiff and second defendant were asleep at night in the second defendant’s boat which was moored in a river – where the light on the boat had failed – where the boat was struck by a speedboat driven by first defendant – whether the first defendant breached his common law and statutory duty of care – whether the second defendant breached his common law duty of care TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILTY AND DAMAGES – APPORTIONMENT IN PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AND CASES – whether plaintiff contributed to his own injury in failing to ensure that the boat was safely moored TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – whether the first and second defendants should be entitled to recover contribution from the other DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (Cth), r 5, r 6, r 7, r 8, r 9, r 30, r 41 Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) Transport Operations Marine Safety Act 1994 (Qld), s 10, s 41, s 43 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 1995 (Qld), reg 13, reg 21, reg 93, reg 95, reg 96, reg 181 TheAustralasian Steam Navigation Co v Smith (1886) 7 NSWR 207, applied
COUNSEL:	J A Griffin QC, with R Dickson, for the plaintiff R W Morgan for the first defendant R J Douglas SC for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	McDonald Balanda & Associates for the plaintiff McCullough Robertson for the first defendant Walsh Halligan Douglas for the second defendant