SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Spiteri & Anor v Monduran Aviation Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QSC 315
PARTIES: FRANCIS JOHN SPITERI
(First Plaintiff)
and
KYM JOY PETERS
(Second Plaintiff)
v
MONDURAN AVIATION PTY LTD
(First Defendant)and
JAMES JOHNSTON MULLETT
(Second Defendant)and
MARK DE LACEY
(Third Defendant)and
JAMES MULLETT and JOY MULLETT AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF IRVING JAMES MULLETT (deceased)
(Fourth Defendant)
FILE NO: S279 of 2000
DIVISION: Trial Division
DELIVERED ON: 9 October 2002
DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton
HEARING DATE: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 July 2002
JUDGE: Dutney J
ORDERS: Judgment for the first plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $121,256.77.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – where duty of care owed to plaintiff – breach – where plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety – where reckless disregard for personal safety – where plaintiff fell from an insufficiently supported ladder
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138, followed
Muller v Cherrie [2000] QSC 330, followed
Girlock Sales Pty Ltd v Hurrell (1982) 149 CLR 155, followed
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (unreported – High Court – 27 April 1951), followed
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301, considered
COUNSEL:Mr J Webb for the Plaintiff
Mr G O’Driscoll for the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Defendants
Mr De Lacey (in person) for the Third Defendant
SOLICITORS: Suthers Lawyers for the Plaintiff
McCullough Robertson Hancock for the First,
Second, Fourth and Fifth Defendants
Frank Spiteri, the first plaintiff, was on a ladder which fell from near the roof of an aircraft hangar to the concrete floor on 10 June 1997. He was then 38 years old having been born on 25 May 1959.
At the time of the fall Mr Spiteri was erecting a spray painting booth or tent in the hangar. Mr Spiteri was a spray painter.
Mr Spiteri had been a spray painter since commencing his apprenticeship in 1976. He qualified as a spray painter in 1980. For some time Mr Spiteri conducted his own business under the name “Frank’s Panel and Paint” in Bundaberg.
In 1996 Mr Spiteri suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident for which he brought litigation which ultimately settled. At about the same time he commenced having marital difficulties. As a result of these difficulties Mr Spiteri was suffering disabling depression. He felt unable to carry on the business and sold it in 1997. Despite these problems Mr Spiteri had largely recovered by the time of the events I am considering and neither was likely to have any material medium or long term effect on him.
Following the sale of the business Mr Spiteri proposed moving to Mackay to start panel beating and spray painting there with his new partner, Kym Peters[1]. At the time of the sale of the business Mr Spiteri was receiving money from an insurance company under a sickness and accident policy as a result of his depression.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Spiteri v Monduran Aviation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] QSC 315
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in this case centred on whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether this duty was breached, and if so, whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident. The court examined the circumstances of the erection process, the competence of those involved, and the equipment provided. The court found that the second defendant was negligent in not ensuring that those erecting the tent were competent and in not providing adequate equipment. The court also found that the plaintiff contributed to his own injuries by failing to take reasonable care for his safety, and assessed his contributory negligence at 50%.
The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, past and future economic loss, gratuitous care, and special damages. The total award was $242,513.55. Given the equal contribution to the cause of the accident, the court ordered that the second defendant pay the plaintiff $121,256.77. The claims against the other defendants were dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered for the first plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $121,256.77, and that the action be otherwise dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.