Spiteri v Monduran Aviation Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2002] QSC 315
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spiteri v Monduran Aviation Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Francis John Spiteri, sought compensation for injuries sustained when a ladder he was standing on collapsed while he was erecting a spray painting booth in an aircraft hangar owned by Monduran Aviation Pty Ltd. The second defendant, James Johnston Mullett, was primarily responsible for the business operations at the hangar and had engaged Spiteri to operate a spray painting business there. The third defendant, Mark de Lacey, was also involved in the erection of the spray booth.

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.