Williams v Riviera Marine (Int) Ptd Ltd - [2013] QDC 306

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Riviera Marine (Int) Ptd Ltd [2013] QDC 306

PARTIES:

PAUL RICHARD WILLIAMS
(Plaintiff)

V

RIVIERA MARINE (INT) PTY LTD
ACN 058 009 215
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

No D386 of 2012

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Southport

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

District Court Southport

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2013 – 29 May 2013

JUDGE:

McGinness DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the defendant with costs

LEGISLATION:

Civil Liabilities Act 2003, s9
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and other Legislation Amendment Act 2010, s305B
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003, Schedule 9

CASES:

Brisbane City Council v Miles [2011] QCA 250
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21
General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas [1953] A.C. 180
Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270
Lusk v Sapwell [2011] QCA 59
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v Gej & MA Gelard Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 319
Neill v NSW Fresh Food and Ice Ptd Ltd (1963) CLR 362
Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316
Wright v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 86
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – WORKPLACE ACCIDENT – where the plaintiff suffered shoulder injury while exiting a small space – where plaintiff had previously suffered dislocated shoulder – whether injury as a result of defendant’s breach of duty of care

EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE – Admissibility - whether evidence relevant - whether witness may be considered an expert

DAMAGES – Personal Injuries – Measure of

COUNSEL:

L M Willson for the plaintiff

R C Morton for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Parker Simmonds Lawyers for the plaintiff

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

On 3 February 2011, the plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant, suffered a shoulder injury while engaged in fixing wiring in the under helm locker of the marine vessel, “Rivera 43”. The plaintiff claims damages for personal injury resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant, as well as damages for breach of contract. Both liability and quantum are in issue.

What happened

The plaintiff was born on 8 June 1957. He was aged 53 at the time of the incident. On 3 February 2011 the plaintiff was working for the defendant as a technical tradesperson. The defendant builds and repairs marine vessels. On that date, the plaintiff was fixing the C-Zone wiring in the under-helm locker of a 43-foot launch named “Riviera 43”.[1] To do this, the plaintiff was working inside a small locker underneath the dash on the boat helm (“the locker”).
[1] T1.36.28

The internal measurements of the locker door were 490mm (height) by 340mm (width).[2] The locker door is the largest standard size locker door used.[3] The locker entrance includes a lip from the floor surface at the…

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 Williams v Riviera Marine (Int) Ptd 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: [2013] QDC 306
Decision Date: 4 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams, a plaintiff, sued Riviera Marine (Int) Ptd Ltd, a defendant, over a personal injury claim stemming from a workplace accident. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained a shoulder injury while exiting a small space in the defendant's premises. The plaintiff had previously suffered a dislocated shoulder, which he claimed was exacerbated by the incident. The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant breached their duty of care, and if so, whether the plaintiff's injury was a result of that breach. Additionally, the court had to determine the admissibility of expert evidence and the measure of damages for the plaintiff's personal injuries.

The court held that the defendant did not breach their duty of care, as the plaintiff's injury was not caused by the defendant's actions. The court found that the plaintiff's previous shoulder dislocation played a significant role in the injury he sustained. Furthermore, the court ruled that the expert evidence presented was not relevant or admissible, as the witness could not be considered an expert in the relevant field. Consequently, the court awarded judgment in favour of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The plaintiff's previous shoulder dislocation and the circumstances surrounding the incident were crucial factors in the court's determination. The court also considered the admissibility of expert evidence, which ultimately did not impact the outcome of the case. The final orders of the court were a judgment in favour of the defendant and an order for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the defendant with 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:	Williams v Riviera Marine (Int) Ptd Ltd [2013] QDC 306
PARTIES:	PAUL RICHARD WILLIAMS (Plaintiff) V RIVIERA MARINE (INT) PTY LTD ACN 058 009 215 (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	No D386 of 2012
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Southport
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2013
DELIVERED AT:	District Court Southport
HEARING DATE:	28 May 2013 – 29 May 2013
JUDGE:	McGinness DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the defendant with costs
LEGISLATION:	Civil Liabilities Act 2003, s9 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and other Legislation Amendment Act 2010, s305B Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003, Schedule 9
CASES:	Brisbane City Council v Miles [2011] QCA 250 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas [1953] A.C. 180 Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270 Lusk v Sapwell [2011] QCA 59 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v Gej & MA Gelard Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 319 Neill v NSW Fresh Food and Ice Ptd Ltd (1963) CLR 362 Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119 Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422 Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316 Wright v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 86 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – WORKPLACE ACCIDENT – where the plaintiff suffered shoulder injury while exiting a small space – where plaintiff had previously suffered dislocated shoulder – whether injury as a result of defendant’s breach of duty of care EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE – Admissibility - whether evidence relevant - whether witness may be considered an expert DAMAGES – Personal Injuries – Measure of
COUNSEL:	L M Willson for the plaintiff R C Morton for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Parker Simmonds Lawyers for the plaintiff Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the defendant