Legal Research
Cases
Sneddon v Petts

Sneddon v Petts

Case [2023] QDC 49 28 March 2023

Loss of Earning Capacity

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sneddon v Petts [2023] QDC 49

PARTIES:

GRAEME JOHN THOMAS SNEDDON
(plaintiff)

v

ALLAN PETTS
(defendant)

FILE NO.:

2405/21

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6, 7 and 21 March 2023; written submissions dated 15 and 17 March 2023

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDER:

JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in the course of employment with the defendant – where the plaintiff was spraying stumps of regrowth which had been cut by the defendant with a brushcutter – where plaintiff tripped and fell breaking his right leg

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – where the plaintiff alleges the defendant breached his duty of care in relation to the system of work, the instructions, training and supervision provided and the provision of appropriate equipment

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the parties agree as to the appropriate ISV – whether the assessment should be in the middle or top of the range

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – where the plaintiff has worked in physically demanding jobs – where the plaintiff was between jobs at the time he was working with the defendant – where the plaintiff is now working in a less physically demanding job – what the plaintiff’s likely employment would have been had he not been injured

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 380
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
s 11, 305B, 305C, 306J, 306N
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld) Sch 12

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301

Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn [2019] WASCA 15

Bevan v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 246
Brisbane Youth Services Inc v Bevan [2017] QCA 211
Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214

Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 56 ALJR 872
Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for The Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29
Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd v Lines Macfarlane & Marshall Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] VSCA 189

Gors v Tomlinson [2020] WASCA 164
Little v McCarthy & Anor [2014] QSC 274
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Meechan v Savco Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 264
Mount Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 at 390
Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 611

O’Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225

Paul & Anor v Rendell (1981) 35 ALR 569
Qantas Airways Limited v Fisher [2014] QCA 329

Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 81 ALJR 1773

State of New South Wales v Mikhael [2012] NSWCA 338

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 Sneddon v Petts

Details

AGLC: Sneddon v Petts [2023] QDC 49
Case: [2023] QDC 49
Decision Date: 28 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sneddon v Petts, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained while working with the defendant. The plaintiff, employed by the defendant to spray stumps of regrowth, tripped and fell, resulting in a broken right leg. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in several respects: the system of work, the instructions, training, and supervision provided, and the provision of appropriate equipment. The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached their duty of care and, if so, the extent of the plaintiff's damages.

The court assessed whether the defendant breached their duty of care by examining the system of work and the provision of instructions, training, and supervision. The court considered whether the defendant's actions or omissions fell below the standard of care expected in such circumstances. The court also evaluated whether the equipment provided was suitable for the tasks undertaken.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of duty on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for damages was dismissed. Regarding the assessment of damages, the court considered the appropriate index of severity (ISV) and the plaintiff's likely future earning capacity. The court concluded that the plaintiff's injuries did not warrant the highest assessment within the agreed range. The court also noted the plaintiff's transition to a less physically demanding job and the uncertain nature of his future employment prospects.

The court entered judgment in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Sneddon v Petts [2023] QDC 49

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

Meechan v Savco Earthmoving Pty Ltd
[2021] QCA 264 Para 1

…7] Paul & Anor v Rendell (1981) 35 ALR 569 at 571 per Lord Diplock; Little v McCarthy & Anor [2014] QSC 274. [38] Meechan v Savco Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 264.…
Gors v Tomlinson
[2020] WASCA 164 Para 4

…isk, the court is more concerned with the probability or the likelihood of the relevant harm, than with its foreseeability.[27] [27] Gors v Tomlinson [2020] WASCA 164 at [61].…
Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn
[2019] WASCA 15 Para 2

…n or misjudgment by the plaintiff when performing the work.[18] [16] Vozza v. Tooth & Co. Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316 at 319. [17] Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn [2019] WASCA 15 at [38]. [18] Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 56 ALJR 872 at 873; Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839.…
Beaven v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd
[2017] QCA 246 Para 11

…principal reason for this is that the past is certain while the future is of necessity less certain. [36] Bevan v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 246.…
Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd
[2017] QSC 214 Para 5

…common law’s approach as explained by Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt. [21] [21] (1980) 146 CLR 40; Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214 at [92]; Brisbane Youth Services Inc v Bevan [2017] QCA 211 at [210].…
Brisbane Youth Service Inc v Beven
[2017] QCA 211 Para 5

…Council v Shirt. [21] [21] (1980) 146 CLR 40; Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214 at [92]; Brisbane Youth Services Inc v Bevan [2017] QCA 211 at [210].…
Qantas Airways Limited v Fisher
[2014] QCA 329 Para 2

…lish a diminution of earning capacity but also that the diminution is or may be productive of economic loss.[33] [33] Qantas Airways Limited v Fisher [2014] QCA 329.…
Little v McCarthy
[2014] QSC 274 Para 1

…ove that there is a chance of that loss occurring.[38] [37] Paul & Anor v Rendell (1981) 35 ALR 569 at 571 per Lord Diplock; Little v McCarthy & Anor [2014] QSC 274. [38] Meechan v Savco Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 264.…
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy
[2012] QCA 312 Para 5

…e.[41] [40] Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 at 643 per Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. [41] Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312.…
State of New South Wales v Mikhael
[2012] NSWCA 338 Para 2

…m mindful that this test is more demanding than the common law test of ‘not far-fetched or fanciful’.[26] [26] State of New South Wales v Mikhael [2012] NSWCA 338 at [79].…
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer
[2007] HCA 42 Para 1

…duty was to take reasonable care to avoid exposing the plaintiff to unnecessary risks of injury. [14] Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 81 ALJR 1773 per Gummow J (with whom Callinan and Heydon JJ agreed). [15] Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for The Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29…
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University
[2005] HCA 14 Para 2

…Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn [2019] WASCA 15 at [38]. [18] Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 56 ALJR 872 at 873; Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839.…
Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd v Lines MacFarlane & Marshall Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2002] VSCA 189 Para 1

…The Court need not deal in terms with evidence when its importance falls away because of the manner in which the Court disposes of the case.” [9] [2002] VSCA 189.…
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd
[1990] HCA 20 Para 5

…hould not be based merely on intuition and should adopt a transparent and reasoned approach based on the evidence.[41] [40] Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 at 643 per Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. [41] Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312.…
Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd
[1987] HCA 68 Para 5

…person would do in response to the risk, are the obviousness of the risk and the experience of the employee.[28] [28] Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 611.…
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina
[1986] HCA 20 Para 3

…ee may be relevant. [19] O’Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225 at 230. [20] Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 at 308.…
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey
[1970] HCA 60 Para 1

…r as that which followed the negligence, was reasonably foreseeable. [24] Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40. [25] Mount Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 at 390.…
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd
[1964] HCA 29 Para 2

…at a risk of injury may occur because of some inattention or misjudgment by the plaintiff when performing the work.[18] [16] Vozza v. Tooth & Co. Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316 at 319. [17] Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn [2019] WASCA 15 at [38]. [18] Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 56 ALJR 872 at 873; Czatyrko v Edith Cow…
O'Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport
[1954] HCA 11 Para 3

…ues of obviousness of a risk and the experience of the relevant employee may be relevant. [19] O’Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225 at 230. [20] Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 at 308.…
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt
[1980] HCA 112 Para 1

…oreseeable. It is sufficient if the consequence of the same general character as that which followed the negligence, was reasonably foreseeable. [24] Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40. [25] Mount Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 at 390.…
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt
[1980] HCA 12 Para 5

…ions to avoid the risk of injury. These factors reflect the common law’s approach as explained by Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt. [21] [21] (1980) 146 CLR 40; Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214 at [92]; Brisbane Youth Services Inc v Bevan [2017] QCA 211 at [210].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
11, 305B, 305C, 306J, 306N 7 mentions (from Para 3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
380 2 mentions (from Para 3)

CITATION:	Sneddon v Petts [2023] QDC 49
PARTIES:	GRAEME JOHN THOMAS SNEDDON (plaintiff) v ALLAN PETTS (defendant)
FILE NO.:	2405/21
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6, 7 and 21 March 2023; written submissions dated 15 and 17 March 2023
JUDGE:	Rosengren DCJ
ORDER:	JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in the course of employment with the defendant – where the plaintiff was spraying stumps of regrowth which had been cut by the defendant with a brushcutter – where plaintiff tripped and fell breaking his right leg TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – where the plaintiff alleges the defendant breached his duty of care in relation to the system of work, the instructions, training and supervision provided and the provision of appropriate equipment DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the parties agree as to the appropriate ISV – whether the assessment should be in the middle or top of the range DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – where the plaintiff has worked in physically demanding jobs – where the plaintiff was between jobs at the time he was working with the defendant – where the plaintiff is now working in a less physically demanding job – what the plaintiff’s likely employment would have been had he not been injured Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 380 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, 305B, 305C, 306J, 306N Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld) Sch 12 Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312 Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn [2019] WASCA 15 Bevan v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 246 Brisbane Youth Services Inc v Bevan [2017] QCA 211 Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214 Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839 Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 56 ALJR 872 Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for The Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29 Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd v Lines Macfarlane & Marshall Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] VSCA 189 Gors v Tomlinson [2020] WASCA 164 Little v McCarthy & Anor [2014] QSC 274 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Meechan v Savco Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 264 Mount Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 at 390 Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 611 O’Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225 Paul & Anor v Rendell (1981) 35 ALR 569 Qantas Airways Limited v Fisher [2014] QCA 329 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 81 ALJR 1773 State of New South Wales v Mikhael [2012] NSWCA 338