Smith v Williams - [2006] QSC 221

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smith v Williams & Ors [2006] QSC 221

PARTIES:

SHAYNE QUINTON SMITH
(Plaintiff)
v
CAMPBELL PATRICK WILLIAMS
(First Defendant)
CAROLINE ANNE WADDELL
(Second Defendant)
PETER WADDELL
(Third Defendant)
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Fourth Defendant)
HERBERTON SHIRE COUNCIL
(Fifth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

166 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

9 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2006

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

The application by the first, second and third defendants is dismissed.1.

The parties have liberty to apply on giving to the other parties two business days notice.2.

I adjourn the question of costs to allow the parties to make written submissions on this issue within 14 days from the date hereof.3.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – MOTION FOR JUDGMENT – where claim for personal injuries – where claim based on respondents’s alleged failure to supervise cattle whose presence on roadway contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries – whether rule in Searle v Wallbank precludes success in the action

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF PERSONS HAVING CHARGE OF ANIMALS – where claim for personal injuries – where claim based on respondents’s alleged failure to supervise cattle whose presence on roadway contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries – whether the rule in Searle v Wallbank applies

TORTS – NUISANCE – WHAT CONSTITUTES – PUBLIC NUISANCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where claim for personal injuries – where claim based on respondents’s alleged failure to supervise cattle whose presence on roadway contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries – whether the rule in Searle v Wallbank precludes an action in nuisance

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2003] QCA 727
Searle v Wallbank [1947] AC 341
State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell (1979) 142 CLR 617

Trevett v Lee (1955) AllER 406

COUNSEL:

Mr R Morton for the applicants
Mr G Baulch SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson for the applicants
Williams Graham & Carman for the respondent

By this application the first, second and third defendants (hereinafter the applicants) seek judgment against the plaintiff pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR). In the alternative they seek that the amended Statement of Claim be struck out as not disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for personal injury sustained on 17 April 2002 when the loaded fuel tanker he was driving overturned whilst he was attempting to avoid cattle which were in the process of cross the roadway. He alleges that the cattle were owned by or under the control of the applicants (or any of them).

The applicants are the occupiers of property known as Woodleigh Station where they carry on the business of grazing cattle.

The plaintiff’s claim against the applicant relevantly is based upon the applicant’s alleged failure to supervise the subject cattle whose presence on the roadway caused or contributed to…

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 Smith v Williams

Details

AGLC: Smith v Williams [2006] QSC 221
Case: [2006] QSC 221
Decision Date: 9 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Smith v Williams, the plaintiff sought compensation for personal injuries sustained in a road accident involving cattle. The accident occurred when the plaintiff collided with cattle that were on the roadway, allegedly due to the defendants' failure to supervise them properly. The defendants, in response, filed a motion for judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's claim was precluded by the rule established in Searle v Wallbank, which typically limits liability for injuries caused by animals on the road. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with deciding whether this rule barred the plaintiff's action in negligence and nuisance.

The court needed to determine if the established principle in Searle v Wallbank, which generally protects owners of animals from liability for injuries caused by animals on the road unless there was a specific failure to exercise reasonable care, applied to the facts of this case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendants' failure to supervise the cattle could be construed as a public nuisance, which might allow the plaintiff to succeed in an action despite the general rule. The central legal issue was whether the exceptions to the rule in Searle v Wallbank could apply to the defendants' failure to supervise the cattle, thereby making them liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The court found that the defendants' failure to supervise the cattle did not fall within the exceptions to the rule in Searle v Wallbank, as there was no evidence of a specific act or omission by the defendants that amounted to a breach of their duty of care. Furthermore, the court held that the presence of the cattle on the roadway did not constitute a public nuisance because it was not an unreasonable interference with the public's use and enjoyment of the road. Consequently, the motion for judgment was dismissed. The court granted the parties liberty to apply for further orders with appropriate notice and adjourned the question of costs to allow for written submissions within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application by the first, second and third defendants is dismissed.1.

The parties have liberty to apply on giving to the other parties two business days notice.2.

I adjourn the question of costs to allow the parties to make written submissions on this issue within 14 days from the date hereof.3.

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:	Smith v Williams & Ors [2006] QSC 221
PARTIES:	SHAYNE QUINTON SMITH (Plaintiff) v CAMPBELL PATRICK WILLIAMS (First Defendant) CAROLINE ANNE WADDELL (Second Defendant) PETER WADDELL (Third Defendant) THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Fourth Defendant) HERBERTON SHIRE COUNCIL (Fifth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	166 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	9 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	3 March 2006
JUDGE:	Jones J
ORDER:	The application by the first, second and third defendants is dismissed.1. The parties have liberty to apply on giving to the other parties two business days notice.2. I adjourn the question of costs to allow the parties to make written submissions on this issue within 14 days from the date hereof.3.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – MOTION FOR JUDGMENT – where claim for personal injuries – where claim based on respondents’s alleged failure to supervise cattle whose presence on roadway contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries – whether rule in Searle v Wallbank precludes success in the action TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF PERSONS HAVING CHARGE OF ANIMALS – where claim for personal injuries – where claim based on respondents’s alleged failure to supervise cattle whose presence on roadway contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries – whether the rule in Searle v Wallbank applies TORTS – NUISANCE – WHAT CONSTITUTES – PUBLIC NUISANCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where claim for personal injuries – where claim based on respondents’s alleged failure to supervise cattle whose presence on roadway contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries – whether the rule in Searle v Wallbank precludes an action in nuisance Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2003] QCA 727 Searle v Wallbank [1947] AC 341 State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell (1979) 142 CLR 617 Trevett v Lee (1955) AllER 406
COUNSEL:	Mr R Morton for the applicants Mr G Baulch SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McInnes Wilson for the applicants Williams Graham & Carman for the respondent