Ryan v Jupiters Management Ltd - [1992] QCA 58

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

[1992] QCA 058

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 52 of 1991

BETWEEN:

KATHLEEN ELIZABETH RYAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

JUPITERS MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Defendant) Appellant

JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Delivered the tenth day of April 1992

This is an appeal by a defendant against a judgment of a District Court judge in a personal injury case. The judge found that the respondent, a woman aged 37 at the date of trial, was injured in the course of her work with the appellant by being required to do work which was too heavy for her. The injury found was described as an "acute musculo-ligamentous tear" in the region of the right shoulder; it was sustained on 21 April 1987. Damages were assessed at nearly $250,000, but that prima facie sum was reduced by crediting the amount of the Worker's Compensation Board charge and also because of the limit of the jurisdiction of the District Court, $200,000. Judgment was given for the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $200,000 plus some interest.

The judge found that the appellant was negligent and also breached its statutory duty to the respondent. Those findings are not seriously challenged, but it is said that the judge erred in concluding that the physical strains to which the respondent was subjected at the place of her work caused the injury of which she complained. A narrower submission was that it was not proved that the injury was caused by the appellant's culpable conduct; it was said that the injury might have been caused by the respondent's having injured herself in the course of doing work other than that which involved negligence or breach of statutory duty on the part of the appellant and that it might have been caused by activities away from work.

Further, the appellant says that if all else be conceded, the damages were too high.

Lastly, it is argued that the judge was wrong in his view of the effect of the jurisdictional limit in s.66(1) of the District Courts Act 1967. That contention involved an attack on the correctness of the decision in Tancred Brothers Pty Limited v. Burke [1986] 1 Qd.R. 494. It is enough to say that we see no reason to doubt that the law is as set out in the reasons of Connolly J. in that case.

The case advanced for the respondent at the trial included evidence concerning the nature of the respondent's duties and, in particular, of the heavier work she had to perform; secondly, evidence of the nature of the physical condition which caused her to give up work in July 1987 and which she attributed to the heavy work she had done for the appellant; thirdly, evidence supporting the existence of a causal connection between the work done and the injury sustained. The appellant's argument as to liability focused on the third element. The judge's view that there was proved a causal connection between the injury and the work…

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 Ryan v Jupiters Management Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Jupiters Management Ltd [1992] QCA 58
Case: [1992] QCA 58
Decision Date: 10/04/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kathleen Elizabeth Ryan sued Jupiters Management Limited for damages in personal injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute was whether the respondent was injured due to her job duties, and if the appellant was liable for the injury. The appellant argued that the injury might have been caused by the respondent's activities away from work or by her having injured herself during other work that did not involve negligence or breach of statutory duty by the appellant. The Court found that the appellant's argument that the injury was not caused by their culpable conduct was not supported by evidence. However, the Court concluded that the judge misstated the effect of the medical evidence and misunderstood Dr. Curtis' evidence. The Court held that the evidence did not support the judge's conclusion that the injury was caused by the respondent's previous work. Therefore, the Court ordered a new trial of the action, set aside the judgment of the District Court, and directed that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, to be taxed. The Court also directed that the parties may make written submissions as to the costs of the first trial.

Orders