Welch v Graham

Case [2012] QDC 103


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Welch v Graham & Another [2012] QDC 103

PARTIES:

FLORENCE AGNES WELCH
(Plaintiff)
v
TIM GRAHAM
(First Defendant)
JANE GRAHAM
(Second Defendant)
NRMA INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
ABN 11 000 016 722
(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

3948/2010

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim for damages

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2012

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

The Defendants pay the Plaintiff the sum of $55,000.00.

The Defendants pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES- occupiers liability- where plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of slip and fall on stairs- whether contributory negligence

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Jaenke v Hinton (unreported Court of Appeal 3/11/95)
Woodward v The Proprietors of Lauretta Lodge unreported Court of Appeal 12/06/97)

COUNSEL:

SJ Given for the Plaintiff
KS Howe for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Sinnamon Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Moray & Agnew for the Defendant

  1. In this proceeding, the plaintiff claims damages for negligence against the first and second defendants who are the owners and occupiers of a dwelling house ("the house") where she slipped and fell on 27 November, 2006, injuring herself ("the incident").

  1. Quantum has been agreed by the parties in the sum of $55,000.00, including a Medicare refund in the sum of $5736.00, and a PBS refund in the sum of $58.60.

  1. It remains for me to determine liability.  Such a determination must also take into account allegations of contributory negligence. 

  1. The plaintiff is the aunt of the second defendant.  She was born on 18 July, 1930 and therefore 76 years of age at the date of the incident.  The second defendant and her husband, the first defendant, had purchased the house a few months earlier and the plaintiff helped them move in on 30 September, 2006.  Thereafter the plaintiff was a regular visitor at the house, assisting the second defendant with the care of her young twins.

  1. The house is in a bushland setting with two flights of wooden sleeper steps ("the stairs") providing access to the front door.  These are illustrated in photographs 1 to 6 in Exhibit 1.  Above the lower flight of steps is a relatively small tree which was referred to in the evidence before me as "the gumnut tree".  A branch of this tree is shown to protrude across the stairs in photograph 2.  The gumnut tree dropped what were described in evidence as "gumnuts", a sample of which is the subject of photograph 8 in Exhibit 1.  It is generally cylindrical in shape, apparently hard and of a similar size to a car key for a late model Holden Commodore. No horticultural evidence was called by either party with a view to more precisely describing it or the tree in question and a specimen was not tendered during the course of the trial.

  1. The gumnut tree was the only tree of this type on the…

Continue reading Welch v Graham

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Welch v Graham [2012] QDC 103
Case
[2012] QDC 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Welch v Graham involved a plaintiff who had suffered personal injuries as a result of a slip and fall on a set of stairs. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, who were the occupiers of the premises where the incident occurred. The court was required to determine whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's injuries under the principles of occupiers' liability, and whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court included the standard of care owed by the occupiers to the plaintiff, the extent to which the plaintiff's actions contributed to the incident, and the appropriate measure of damages to be awarded.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as an invitee on their premises. The court held that the defendants had breached this duty by failing to maintain a safe environment, specifically by not ensuring that the stairs were free of hazards. However, the court also found that the plaintiff had contributed to the accident by not taking reasonable care for her own safety, which reduced the damages recoverable from the defendants. The court assessed the plaintiff's damages at $55,000, taking into account her contributory negligence. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff this sum, as well as the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Defendants pay the Plaintiff the sum of $55,000.00.

The Defendants pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis.

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.