Beardmore v Franklins Management Services P/L [2002] QCA 60
[2002] QCA 60
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-08-24|Before: McMurdo P, McPherson JA, Ambrose JSeparate reasons, for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Ambrose J concurring as, to the orders made, McPherson JA, dissenting
McMurdo P, McPherson JA, Ambrose JSeparate reasons, for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Ambrose J concurring as
Catchwords
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –
EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURY OR
DEATH CASES –
where District Court action – where damages awarded within Magistrates
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURY ORDEATH CASES –where District Court action – where damages awarded within MagistratesCourt jurisdiction – wherecosts awarded on lower District Court Scale– where no difference in Magistrates Court Scale of fees between indemnityandstandard costs – whether Judge had discretion to award costs onDistrict Court Scale – whether Cameron v Nominal Defendant waswrongly decidedTORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE –REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – DUTY OFOCCUPIERS – action for damages for personal injury – where shopperinjured in supermarket aisle by well-laden shoppingtrolley being pushed bychild – where child’s parent not joined as defendant in the action– where child had beenpushing trolley quickly up and down aisle andriding on it while making “racing car” noises – where childhad been
“acting uncontrollably” for half to three quarters of an
hour prior to injuring the plaintiff – where parent apparently
not
exercising reasonable control over child’s behaviour – where child
had previously bumped into older lady with trolley
– whether supermarket
staff knew or ought to have known of child’s behaviour – whether
RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – OCCUPIERSDistrict Court Act 1967
(Qld), s 69(3), s 118(3)Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (Eng), s 2(1), s
2(3)Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 241, s 242, s 253Uniform
Civil Procedure Rules (Qld), r 360, r 361, r 698, r 704, sch 2, sch
3Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986-1987) 162 CLR
479, consideredCameron v Nominal Defendant [2000] QCA 137, Appeal No
11527 of 1999, 18 April 2000, consideredCarmarthenshire County Council v
Lewis [1955] UKHL 2
[1955] AC 549, consideredDavid Jones (Canberra) Pty Ltd v
Stone [1970] HCA 28
(1970) 123 CLR 185, consideredHackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84
(1984) 155
CLR 614, consideredIndermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274,
consideredRe: Golden Casket Art Union Office [1994] QCA 480
[1995] 2 QdR 346,
consideredThe Wagon Mound (No 2)
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The
Miller Steamship Co Pty & anor [1966] UKPC 1
[1967] 1 AC 617, consideredWormald
v Schintler & anor [1992] QCA 311
CA No 22 of 1992, 23 September 1992,
consideredZnoski v Shop-Rite Supermarkets Inc (1973) 300 A 2d 164,
considered
Judgment (17 paragraphs)
[1]
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES - where District Court action - where damages awarded within Magistrates Court jurisdiction - where costs awarded on lower District Court Scale - where no difference in Magistrates Court Scale of fees between indemnity and standard costs - whether Judge had discretion to award costs on District Court Scale - whether Cameron v Nominal Defendant was wrongly decided
[2]
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE - PARTICULAR CASES - DUTY OF OCCUPIERS - action for damages for personal injury - where shopper injured in supermarket aisle by well-laden shopping trolley being pushed by child - where child's parent not joined as defendant in the action - where child had been pushing trolley quickly up and down aisle and riding on it while making "racing car" noises - where child had been "acting uncontrollably" for half to three quarters of an hour prior to injuring the plaintiff - where parent apparently not exercising reasonable control over child's behaviour - where child had previously bumped into older lady with trolley - whether supermarket staff knew or ought to have known of child's behaviour - whether supermarket staff had duty to act where child accompanied by parent - whether duty breached - whether injury reasonably foreseeable
[3]
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES - OCCUPIERS
[4]
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (Eng), s 2(1), s 2(3)
[5]
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 241, s 242, s 253
[6]
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld), r 360, r 361, r 698, r 704, sch 2, sch 3