In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Queensland delivered judgment in Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QSC 26.
The case involved a tow truck driver who was injured while preparing to tow a bus that had broken down near Ban Ban Springs in Queensland.
What Was the Case About?
The plaintiff, Mr Anderson, was employed as a tow truck operator by Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd.
He attended a broken-down Mitsubishi bus on the Burnett Highway. The bus was owned and driven by the second defendant.
While Mr Anderson was under the bus preparing to attach towing equipment, the bus rolled forward off wooden blocks. Part of the underside of the bus came into contact with Mr Anderson’s body, causing significant injuries to his chest and internal area.
Mr Anderson brought proceedings against several parties, including his employer, the bus owner and the relevant insurer.
The Employer’s System of Work
At the start of the trial, the employer admitted breach of duty.
The employer admitted that it did not have a system of work requiring both:
- The handbrake of the vehicle being towed to be applied; and
- The wheels of the vehicle being towed to be chocked.
The employer accepted that its breach caused Mr Anderson’s injuries.
However, the employer argued that Mr Anderson had contributed to his own injuries.
The Handbrake Issue
A central factual issue was whether the bus owner had released the handbrake before Mr Anderson went under the bus.
Mr Anderson’s evidence was that he told the bus owner that the handbrake needed to stay on until the end of the towing preparation process.
The bus owner denied releasing the handbrake.
The Court considered the video footage, the position of the parties, the movements inside the bus, the evidence of conversations after the incident, and the evidence given by a police officer.
The Court found that the bus owner had released the handbrake after Mr Anderson had observed it to be applied.
Motor Vehicle Liability
The case also considered whether the injury came within the motor vehicle insurance legislation.
The Court considered whether the injury was caused by, through, or in connection with a motor vehicle and whether the bus had run out of control.
The Court found that the bus was running out of control when it moved forward off the wooden blocks and no one was in a position to control its movement.
The Court found that the case came within the relevant motor vehicle accident legislation.
Negligence of the Bus Owner
The Court found that the bus owner owed Mr Anderson a duty of care.
The relevant risk was the risk of serious personal injury or death if the handbrake was not applied while Mr Anderson was under the bus attaching the towing mechanism.
The Court found that the bus owner failed to exercise reasonable care by releasing the handbrake without informing Mr Anderson.
The Court found that this negligent act caused Mr Anderson’s injuries.
Contributory Negligence
The defendants argued that Mr Anderson had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety.
They argued that he should have checked the handbrake personally before going under the bus and that he should have chocked the rear wheels.
The Court rejected the contributory negligence argument.
The Court found that Mr Anderson had followed one of the two work methods he had been taught. He had heard a sound suggesting the handbrake was applied, observed the handbrake to be applied, and instructed the bus owner not to release it.
The Court found that, at its highest, Mr Anderson was merely inadvertent in not checking the handbrake again as he got off the bus. That did not amount to contributory negligence.
Apportionment Between Defendants
The Court then considered how responsibility should be divided between the employer and the bus owner.
The employer had a defective system of work.
The bus owner released the handbrake after being instructed not to do so.
The Court found that both were equally culpable. The employer failed to provide a safe work method, and the bus owner did an act that he had been told not to do.
The Court considered it just and equitable to apportion responsibility equally between the employer and the bus owner/insurer.
Damages
The Court assessed damages differently against the employer and against the motor vehicle defendants because different legal frameworks applied.
Against the employer, the Court assessed damages under the workers’ compensation framework.
Against the second and third defendants, damages were assessed at common law.
The Court ultimately entered judgment for Mr Anderson against the employer in the amount of $546,175.09 and against the third defendant in the amount of $1,970,874.41.
Practical Takeaway
The key takeaway from this case is that workplace injury matters may become more complex where a motor vehicle is involved.
The Court may need to consider not only whether the employer provided a safe system of work, but also whether another person’s conduct contributed to the injury and whether motor vehicle insurance legislation applies.
The case also shows that contributory negligence is assessed in context. A worker’s actions are considered against the system of work, the training provided, the conditions of the task and the instructions given at the time.
The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.