Ringelstein v Redford Cattle Co Pty Ltd - [1994] QCA 14

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 014
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal Nos. 142 and 145 of 1993

Before

The President
Mr Justice McPherson
Justice White

[Ringelstein v. The Nominal Defendant (Qld.)]

BETWEEN:

DENIS RINGELSTEIN

Plaintiff

AND:

REDFORD CATTLE COMPANY PTY. LIMITED

(First Defendant) First Appellant

AND:

HILLTERLINGS PTY. LTD.
(Second Defendant) Second Appellant

AND:

THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT (QUEENSLAND)

(Third Party) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 01/03/94

The plaintiff in District Court Action No. 2803 of 1992 was injured on 25 October 1990, according to the pleadings in that action. The appellants are the defendants in the action. Each has appealed against orders made in the District Court on 30 June 1993 striking out its Third Party Notice claiming indemnity or contribution from the respondent to this appeal, The Nominal Defendant (Queensland), and dismissing the respondent from the action.

At the material time, the first appellant was the owner of two motor vehicles, one a Toyota Four Wheel Drive which the plaintiff had been driving and near which he was standing when he was injured, and the other an unregistered Hino truck which was being driven by an employee of the second appellant. For the purpose of this appeal, it is to be taken that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by (i) the negligence of the first appellant as the plaintiff's employer; (ii) the negligence of the driver of the unregistered truck for which the second appellant is vicariously liable; and (iii) the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The first appellant is not sued as the owner of either the registered Four Wheel Drive or the unregistered truck. Further, no direct breach of duty is expressly alleged against the second appellant. Nor is the driver of the unregistered truck sued. Nor is the respondent joined as a defendant in the action, although it might have been joined under subsection 4F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936 as amended. Had the plaintiff joined the respondent and recovered a judgment against it which the respondent satisfied, the respondent could have recovered the amount paid (and costs) from the first appellant as owner, or the driver of the unregistered vehicle, pursuant to subsection 4G(1)(b) of that Act, which is set out below.

The District Court Judge who dismissed the respondent from the action held that no claim for indemnity or contribution could be maintained against the respondent by either appellant because the plaintiff's damage was not suffered "as a result partly of the fault of a person or persons other than the owner or person in charge" of the unregistered Hino truck: see subsection 4F(3B) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act, which provides:

"(3B)Where, in respect of any claim which may be made to and enforced against The Nominal Defendant (Queensland) under subsection (2),(3) or (3A) of this section, the damage the subject of the claim was suffered by the claimant as a result partly of the fault of a…

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 Ringelstein v Redford Cattle Co 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: [1994] QCA 14
Decision Date: 1/03/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ringelstein v Redford Cattle Co Pty Ltd was a case heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Ringelstein, was an employee of the first appellant, Ringelstein & Co Pty Ltd, who was injured in an accident involving an unregistered work vehicle. The vehicle was driven by an employee of the second appellant, Redford Cattle Co Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the nominal defendant, Ringelstein & Co Pty Ltd, was liable to indemnify or contribute to the plaintiff's losses under section 4F(3B) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936. The court needed to determine the meaning of "fault" and "in charge of" in the context of the legislation.

The primary legal issue was the interpretation of the statutory provisions. The court considered whether the second appellant was "in charge of" the vehicle at the time of the accident, and if so, whether the first appellant was still liable as a nominal defendant. The court examined the relationship between the two appellants and the employees involved, as well as the extent of control exercised by the second appellant over the vehicle. The court also needed to determine whether the statutory provisions imposed a strict liability regime or if there was room for the application of common law principles.

The Supreme Court held that the second appellant was "in charge of" the vehicle at the time of the accident, and thus the first appellant was not liable as a nominal defendant. The court found that the phrase "in charge of" in the context of the Act did not necessarily mean direct control, but rather a degree of control that could be inferred from the circumstances. The court emphasised that the statutory provisions did not impose strict liability but allowed for the consideration of common law principles. The court further held that the first appellant was not liable for the actions of the second appellant's employee as there was no evidence of fault on the part of the first appellant.

The final orders of the court were that the second appellant was liable for the plaintiff's losses, and the first appellant was not liable as a nominal defendant. The court also noted that the plaintiff could seek indemnity or contribution from the second appellant under the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders