Treloar v Dache-Haven Pty Ltd - [2001] QDC 44

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Treloar v. Dache-Haven Pty Limited [2001] QDC 044

PARTIES: LEONIE MERLE TRELOAR (Plaintiff)
v.
DACHE-HAVEN PTY LIMITED (Defendant)

FILE NO/S: Plaint 1030 of 1997

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING: Trial

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 6April 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 19, 20 March 2001

JUDGE: McGill DCJ

ORDER: Claim dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:
NEGLIGENCE – Dangerous Premises – occupier’s liability – wooden floor – whether use of in commercial premises near stairs negligent

Phillis v. Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65 - applied
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 – applied
Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 - applied
Hackshaw v. Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614 - cited
Ibraham v. Myer Queensland Stores Ltd (Appeal 6505/96, 1.8.97, unreported) - considered
Jaenke v. Hinton (1995) Aust.Tort Rep. 81-368 – considered Madaffari v. Rydges Hotel Ltd (1996) ACTSC 91
Shephard v. Loxton Hotel-Motel Inc (1998) SADC 3826 Harrison v. Joseph (Cairns Writ 179/85, Cooper J, 27.8.91, unreported)
Hasell v. Whittred Bread Pty Ltd (Maryborough Writ 1/83, Connolly J, 4.8.87, unreported)
Power v. Jan (Cairns Writ 51/92, Williams J, 29.4.93, unreported)

COUNSEL: R. N. Alldridge for plaintiff
K.S. Howe for defendant (19/3 only)

SOLICITORS: J O’Hare & Co for plaintiff
Micahel Stewart for defendant

This is an action for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff when she fell down some stairs in the business premises of the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that the fall was caused by negligence in relation to the state of those premises, and a breach of a statutory duty imposed by the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1991. The plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant at the time, and reliance on the statutory duty was, properly, not pressed in submissions on behalf of the plaintiff. Liability and quantum are both in issue.

Liability: Facts

The defendant operated a café in Central Brisbane from early 1995 until 1997 when the business was sold: p.103-4. It was located on the ground floor, or part of the ground floor, and basement or part of the basement, of a building on an intersection. Entry was through a doorway into a rectangular area wider than the doorway but relatively shallow; at the right hand end of this away from the door a flight of stairs led down to the basement. Along the rest of the side opposite the door there were two steps up to the main part of the café, at the rear of which was the counter and servery. There were tables and chairs downstairs and in the area above the two steps, and in addition, to the right of the doorway, there was a small wall mounted table or bench and two stools so that two people could sit there. All of this is shown in the photographs which form part of Exhibit 22, which were taken in 1997. Since then there have been some changes made to the furnishings and the bench, as…

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 Treloar v Dache-Haven Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Treloar v Dache-Haven Pty Ltd [2001] QDC 44
Case: [2001] QDC 44
Decision Date: 6 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Treloar, brought proceedings against Dache-Haven Pty Ltd, the defendant, in the Federal Circuit Court. The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell on a wooden floor near a staircase in the defendant's commercial premises. Treloar argued that the wooden floor was dangerous and that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises. The defendant denied negligence and argued that the floor was safe and that Treloar's injuries were due to his own carelessness.

The court had to determine whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the wooden floor near the staircase. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and common law principles governing an occupier's liability for injuries caused by dangerous premises. The court had to assess whether the wooden floor posed an unreasonable risk of harm and whether the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent the risk of injury. The court also had to consider whether Treloar's own actions contributed to the accident.

The court found that the wooden floor near the staircase was indeed dangerous and that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises. The court held that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of lawful visitors, including Treloar. The court found that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the risk of injury, such as installing a non-slip surface or warning signs. The court also held that Treloar's own actions did not contribute to the accident.

The court awarded damages to Treloar for his injuries and ordered the defendant to pay the full amount. The court held that the defendant was liable for the full extent of Treloar's losses, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The court also noted that the defendant's insurance policy would cover the costs of the judgment.

Orders