Duty of police and ambulance services : what happens when the plaintiff refuses treatment?

In a recent case the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the duty of care owed by ambulance and police officers, issues concerning breach and causation and the practical effect of the exclusion of the plaintiff's evidence.

Proof of causation in informed consent cases : establishing what the plaintiff would have done

A degree of judicial caution in accepting the assertion of a plaintiff as to what he or she would have done, if fully informed of risks, is clearly evident upon a review of decisions applying the common law. Civil liability legislation in some jurisdictions now precludes assertion evidence by a plaintiff. Although this legislative change was seen as creating a significant challenge for plaintiffs seeking to discharge the onus of proof of establishing causation in such cases, recent decisions suggest a more limited practical effect. While a plaintiff’s ex post facto assertions as to what he or she would have done if fully informed of risks may now be inadmissible, objective and subjective evidence as to the surrounding facts and circumstances, in particular the plaintiff’s prior attitudes and conduct, and the assertion evidence of others remains admissible. Given the court’s reliance on both objective and subjective evidence, statistical evidence may be of increasing importance.

What the plaintiff would have done in informed consent cases

Both at common law and under the various civil liability acts, in deciding liability for breach of duty, the plaintiff always bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any fact relevant to the issue of causation. For plaintiffs in medical negligence claims founded on negligent failure to provide sufficient information (informed consent cases), this onus involves persuading the court to make a favourable determination as to what a particular patient would have done (from a subjective perspective) in the hypothetical situation of the defendant not being negligent (that is, in the event that the medical practitioner had provided sufficient information to the patient)

Practice and Procedures - costs - offer to settle by plaintiff under UCPR r360 for amount of claim plus costs

In JLG Industries Inc v Teetree Pty Ltd [2002] QDC 031 the court considered the implications in terms of costs of an offer to settle by the plaintiff under the UCPR where the element of compromise involved only acceptance of the amount of claim without interest.

Summary judgment for plaintiff

The decision in Burke v Van Eeuwen (unreported, District Court of Queensland, No 1490/2002) reminds practitioners of the importance of an appearance for a party at any hearing of an application, even when a party's representatives may consider an opposing party is clearly not entitled to the order it seeks.

The issue of consent: For the plaintiff or defendant to prove in trespass to person?

In White v Johnston1 the vexed question of whether it is for a plaintiff to prove lack of consent to a trespass to person or for the defendant to establish consent as defence was considered. The court also considered the principles of assessing an award of exemplary damages...

Recent cases on intoxication

Intoxication of a plaintiff raises many issues in a negligence action – duty of care, breach of duty, causation and the defence of contributory negligence. Recently intoxication has been examined by the Full Court of Tasmania in relation to duty and breach and by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in respect of causation and contributory negligence.

Golf can be dangerous : be forewarned!

In Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119 (20 May 2008) the plaintiff claimed for personal injuries suffered when he was struck by a golf ball during the course of a tournament. The plaintiff was a member of a group of four, playing in a two-day tournament at Indooroopilly Golf Club. All four players had teed off at the second hole of the course and when the defendant took his second shot; his ball struck one of the trees bordering the fairway and deflected, hitting the plaintiff who was waiting to take his third stroke. As the ball was in flight, the defendant had called out "Watch out Errol", or words to that effect, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered injury to his eye, leaving his vision impaired. The plaintiff sued in negligence, alleging that by failing to shout "fore" as is traditionally done in golf, the defendant had failed to warn the appellant and this was a breach of their duty. The claim in negligence was dismissed by the Queensland Supreme Court, holding that there had been no breach of the duty.

15 year old volens to BMX riding risks

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently heard a case that raised the defence of volenti on fit injuria. By a majority of 2:1 the court held in Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134 (20 April 2007) that the defence of volenti was established and defeated the action in negligence for damages for personal injury. The facts of the case were quite simple. The plaintiff was 15 years old when he was injured at the Bluebell Park which was controlled and managed by the Caboolture Shire Council (the defendant). The park had a BMX track – built and maintained by the defendant. At trial it was held that although the defendant owed a duty of care to entrants, a duty was not owed to the plaintiff. The judge found that the plaintiff was different to other entrants who used facilities provided by a council in a public park. The plaintiff was not relying upon the defendant to provide a BMX track with jumps that were reasonably safe as the evidence was that the track was regularly altered by third parties and the plaintiff knew that. Therefore it was reasoned that the plaintiff was relying upon the ability of the third parties who modified the jump and his own ability to use it, not the ability of the defendant to provide a reasonably safe track (at [10]). The trial judge also held that if a duty was owed, the defence of volenti applied so as to defeat the claim for damages. This was based upon the evidence that the plaintiff knew of the modification of the jump by third parties and knew of the risk. It was held that the plaintiff ‘had the appropriate subjective appreciation of the risk’ (at [11]).

Causing economic harm to property developers : damages for starting an incurably bad appeal?

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal involved an unusual statement of claim made on behalf of the developer of a proposed resort in Port Douglas. The decision is The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QCA 475. The issue The defendant had objected to a development application of the plaintiff developer and lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court against the council decision granting a development permit. The main issue in the Planning and Environment Court was whether the site coverage of the proposed resort was excessive. In a separate action (the subject matter of the present appeal), the plaintiff developer claimed damages for ‘negligence’ alleging that the defendant had breached a duty of care not to appeal without properly or reasonably assessing whether the development qualified for a permit given that the resort qualified for the maximum allowable site coverage. It was alleged that the appeal lodged by the defendant in the Planning and Environment Court had no reasonable prospects of success and that any reasonable person properly advised would know, or ought reasonably to have known, that to be so. The defendant had been “put on notice” that the plaintiff would incur loss of $10,000 for every day there was a delay in starting construction of the resort. The claim made by the developer required the court to consider those circumstances where a person may lawfully and deliberately cause economic harm to another. Was a duty of care owed by the defendant for negligent conduct of litigation that caused economic loss to the plaintiff?

Can compensation be claimed under the standard commercial land and building contract where the property sold has no legally enforceable vehicular access?

This was the question that confronted Wilson J in Jarema Pty Ltd v Michihiko Kato [2004] QSC 451. Facts The plaintiff was the buyer of a commercial property at Bundall. The property comprised a 6 storey office building with a basement car park with 54 car parking spaces. The property was sold for $5 million with the contract being the standard REIQ/QLS form for Commercial Land and Buildings (2nd ed GST reprint). The contract provided for a “due diligence” period. During this period, the buyer’s solicitors discovered that there was no direct access from a public road to the car park entrance. Access to the car park was over a lot of which the Gold Coast City Council was the registered owner under a nomination of trustees, the Council holding the property on trust for car parking and town planning purposes. Due to the absence of a registered easement over the Council’s land, the buyer’s solicitors sought a reduction in the purchase price. The seller would not agree to this. Finally the sale was completed with the buyer reserving its rights to seek compensation.

Uncetainty in claiming damages for defects in property

In Project Management Company No 2 Pty Ltd v Cushway Blackford & Associates Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 102 the appellant sought leave to join its parent company party (Project Management Company No 1) as a plaintiff to the proceedings and to amend its statement of claim. It was argued that the parent company had suffered the loss claimed in the proceedings, rather than the appellant. Rule 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) allows a court at any stage of the proceeding to order that ‘a person whose presence before the court would be desirable, just and convenient to enable the court to adjudicate effectually and completely on all matters in dispute connected with the proceeding’ be include as a party. To determine this issue, the Court of Appeal had to review the law relevant to the proceedings – a claim in negligence for pure economic loss, in particular, the principles espoused by the High Court in Bryan v Maloney(1995) 182 CLR 609 and Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515.

The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context

In Miller v Miller (2011) 85 ALJR 480; [2011] HCA 9 the High Court examined the complex issue of joint illegal activity. The issue before the court was whether a plaintiff who had engaged in an illegal activity with the defendant may claim damages in negligence. In its decision the court analysed the cases of Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438, Smith v Jenkins (1970) 119 CLR 397, Jackson v Harrison (1978) 138 CLR 438 and Gala v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243.