Tait v Goondiwindi Regional Council - [2019] QDC 208

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Tait v Goondiwindi Regional Council [2019] QDC 208

PARTIES:

PAULA DEANNE TAIT
(plaintiff)

v

GOONDIWINDI REGIONAL COUNCIL
ABN 79 969 846 487
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 1665/18

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 October 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15, 16, 19, and 22 August 2019

JUDGE:

Jarro DCJ

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $304,138.11.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – where the defendant is a local government or public authority – the general principles concerning resources, responsibilities etc. of public or other authorities in s 35 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 – where the local government had a duty of care to repair defects in a State-controlled road pursuant to a contract between the local government and the State – whether the local government has a duty of care to road users, such as the plaintiff, to fix ‘intervention level’ defects and defects deemed to be safety hazards in a timely and efficient manner and to maintain the road network to a safe standard for road users

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – where there was heavy rainfall connected with a declared disaster – where the plaintiff was injured following a collision with a large ‘pothole’ or ‘washout’ in a floodway on the State-controlled road within the declared disaster area – where employees of the local government attended the area of the floodway prior to the accident and erected temporary signage on both approaches to the floodway warning road users of a ‘rough surface’ and to ‘reduce speed’– where the local government employees failed to properly secure the temporary signage and the temporary signage was not visible to road users approaching the floodway from a southerly direction – where the local government did not have system to monitor the availability of temporary signage and/or sandbags to secure temporary signage – where the plaintiff was not put on notice to adapt to the changed driving or riding conditions – whether the local government breached its duty and is liable for misfeasance

TORTS – CIVIL LIABILITY LEGISLATION: MODIFICATION TO TORTS AND THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE – LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AND OTHER AUTHORITIES – the restriction on liability of public or other authorities with functions of road authorities in s 37 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 – whether the local government had actual knowledge of the particular risk, the materialisation of which resulted in the harm – where the local government had actual knowledge of the deteriorating surface of the in the floodway on the State-controlled road

DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – the test in Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 – where the plaintiff works as a practice nurse at a medical…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tait v Goondiwindi Regional Council 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: [2019] QDC 208
Decision Date: 31 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tait v Goondiwindi Regional Council, the plaintiff, Tait, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident caused by a pothole on a State-controlled road within a declared disaster area. The defendant, Goondiwindi Regional Council, a local government, was responsible for maintaining the road under a contract with the State. Tait alleged that the Council failed to properly secure temporary warning signs and did not maintain the road to a safe standard, resulting in his injuries.

The primary legal issues concerned whether the Council owed a duty of care to road users to repair defects promptly and maintain the road to a safe standard, and if so, whether it breached that duty. The court also examined whether the Council's failure to secure temporary signage and its lack of a monitoring system for such safety measures constituted a breach of its duty. Further, the court considered whether the Council had actual knowledge of the road's deteriorating condition, which could affect its liability under the Civil Liability Act 2003.

The court found that the Council did owe a duty of care to road users, including Tait, to repair defects and maintain the road safely. It held that the Council's failure to properly secure the temporary signage and its lack of a monitoring system constituted a breach of this duty. Additionally, the Council had actual knowledge of the road's deteriorating condition, which did not absolve it of liability. The court assessed Tait's damages under the Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd test, considering his diminished earning capacity due to his injuries and his proximity to retirement.

The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $304,138.11 and directed the parties to address the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $304,138.11.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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:	Tait v Goondiwindi Regional Council [2019] QDC 208
PARTIES:	PAULA DEANNE TAIT (plaintiff) v GOONDIWINDI REGIONAL COUNCIL ABN 79 969 846 487 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 1665/18
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	31 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15, 16, 19, and 22 August 2019
JUDGE:	Jarro DCJ
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $304,138.11. 2. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – where the defendant is a local government or public authority – the general principles concerning resources, responsibilities etc. of public or other authorities in s 35 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 – where the local government had a duty of care to repair defects in a State-controlled road pursuant to a contract between the local government and the State – whether the local government has a duty of care to road users, such as the plaintiff, to fix ‘intervention level’ defects and defects deemed to be safety hazards in a timely and efficient manner and to maintain the road network to a safe standard for road users TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – where there was heavy rainfall connected with a declared disaster – where the plaintiff was injured following a collision with a large ‘pothole’ or ‘washout’ in a floodway on the State-controlled road within the declared disaster area – where employees of the local government attended the area of the floodway prior to the accident and erected temporary signage on both approaches to the floodway warning road users of a ‘rough surface’ and to ‘reduce speed’– where the local government employees failed to properly secure the temporary signage and the temporary signage was not visible to road users approaching the floodway from a southerly direction – where the local government did not have system to monitor the availability of temporary signage and/or sandbags to secure temporary signage – where the plaintiff was not put on notice to adapt to the changed driving or riding conditions – whether the local government breached its duty and is liable for misfeasance TORTS – CIVIL LIABILITY LEGISLATION: MODIFICATION TO TORTS AND THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE – LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AND OTHER AUTHORITIES – the restriction on liability of public or other authorities with functions of road authorities in s 37 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 – whether the local government had actual knowledge of the particular risk, the materialisation of which resulted in the harm – where the local government had actual knowledge of the deteriorating surface of the in the floodway on the State-controlled road DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – the test in Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 – where the plaintiff works as a practice nurse at a medical…