Schofield v Hopman

In the case of Schofield v Hopman, the plaintiff, Schofield, alleged negligence against the defendant, Hopman, in relation to a road accident. The incident occurred on a single lane bitumen road between Windora and Quilpie, where Schofield was travelling west on a Harley Davidson motorcycle and Hopman was driving east towing a caravan. Schofield claimed that Hopman was negligent in not moving their left hand tyres off the bitumen and remaining in the centre of the road, contrary to the road rules. The court was required to determine whether Hopman was negligent and whether they were as far left as practicable under the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider the admissibility of a hearsay statement provided by the plaintiff, which Hopman objected to as it was not within any recognised exception. Schofield argued that the statement fell within the res gestae exception, while Hopman contested this.

Regarding the evidence, the court examined whether the hearsay statement was admissible under the res gestae exception. The court also considered the plaintiff's claim for damages, specifically the loss of earnings and earning capacity, as well as expenses flowing from the plaintiff's inability to work. Schofield argued that the services provided for maintaining a bed and breakfast business were gratuitous services within s 59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), and that the risk of loss to the business was a relevant need for the services. Hopman argued that the Griffiths principle did not extend to the care provided to pets, and that the loss of a hobby or pet care was more appropriately addressed in general damages or considered too remote a damage to be laid at the tortfeasor's door.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim for damages was not substantiated, as there was no evidence of the existence or extent of the risk to the bed and breakfast business. The court also held that the hearsay statement was not admissible under the res gestae exception, as it did not fall within the recognised exception. Furthermore, the court found that the Griffiths principle did not extend to the care provided to pets or a hobby, and that such losses were more appropriately addressed in general damages or considered too remote a damage to be laid at the tortfeasor's door. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, Hopman, and ordered that submissions be provided by 4pm Thursday 14 December 2017.