Robinson Helicopter Co Incorp v McDermott [2016] HCA 22: Negligence

In Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v Graham James McDermott & Ors [2016] HCA 22 (delivered 8 June 2016) the High Court of Australia has, unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland in McDermott & Ors v Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated [2014] QCA 357 (delivered 19 December 2014). In its decision, the High Court has found that the majority of the Queensland Court of Appeal erred by overturning the primary judge's findings of fact concerning the cause of a helicopter crash (see McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company [2014] QSC 34 (17 March 2014).

Background

In May 2004 a “Robinson 22” helicopter crashed close to the Northern Territory/Queensland border killing the pilot, Mr Kevin Norton. Mr Graham McDermott, the sole passenger in the helicopter at the time, his wife Ms Juanita McDermott, and Mr McDermott’s employer, NTB Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd (together the respondents) brought an action for damages against a number of parties, including the Robinson Helicopter Company Inc (the appellant.

It was common ground the accident was caused by the failure of bolt 4 in the helicopter's forward flex plate, a critical fastener that, if removed or lost, could compromise the safe operation of the helicopter and for this reason, the helicopter’s maintenance manual (the manual) specified that a secondary locking mechanism should be employed. This involved a “palnut” to be placed on bolt 4 and that after its installation, a torque (paint) stripe to be applied across both bolt 4 and the palnut. If bolt 4 had been incorrectly assembled therefore, the torque stripe would have been visibly damaged, thus alerting the Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer(LAMEs) during the regular inspections. After reassembly, but before the crash, the flex plate had been subject to a number of routine inspections by pilots and engineers but the defect had not been detected.

At Trial and On Appeal

The respondent, along with his wife and employer, brought proceedings against Robinson (the appellant) in the Supreme Court of Queensland (see [2014] QSC 34). The trial proceeding were for negligence and also under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

The essential question at first instance and then on appeal (see [2014] QCA 357] was whether the Manual provided an adequate inspection procedure for the detection of the defect.

The primary judge dismissed the respondent's claims, finding that the Manual had provided adequate instructions for the identification of the defect.

In the Queensland Court of Appeal, the majority of the Court allowed the respondent's appeal, finding that the Manual had not provided adequate instructions to detect the defect and, ultimately, that the appellant was liable either in negligence or under the TPA. In so doing the majority of the Queensland Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion from that reached by the primary judge regarding the likely appearance of bolt 4 at the time of the relevant inspections.

On Appeal to the High Court

By grant of special leave, the appellant appealed to the High Court. The grounds of appeal included:

• The Court of Appeal erred in finding (see [2014] QCA 357 at [85]) that no disadvantage of the kind there identified from the use of [the] torque wrench, attached to the use of a simple, inexpensive spanner to check each bolt in the flex plate for looseness, when the evidence was to the contrary; and
• The Court of Appeal erred in departing from findings made by the trial judge which were open on the evidence and further, which were neither glaringly improbable nor contrary to compelling inferences.

The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the primary judge's findings of fact accorded to the weight of lay and expert evidence and to the range of permissible inferences, and that the majority of the Queensland Court of Appeal should not have overturned them.

Accordingly, the primary judge was right to hold that it was not shown that the contents of the Manual fell short of what was required to discharge appellant's duty of care in the circumstances of this case. The High Court further held that, even if it were accepted that the appellant had breached its duty of care in the manner alleged by the respondent, it could not be concluded that the breach of duty was causative of the crash [see [2016] HCA 22 at 82].

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v Graham James McDermott & Ors [2016] HCA 22 (8 June 2016)

McDermott & Ors v Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated [2014] QCA 357 (19 December 2014)

McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company [2014] QSC 34 (17 March 2014)