Lockhart v Bartholomai & Anor
[2025] QDC 202 · Byrne KC DCJ
A 73-year-old man was walking his dog along the footpath opposite a house in Mountain Creek when the residents' Labrador ran out through their open driveway gate and caused him to fall, fracturing his right knee, damaging a nerve (causing 'foot drop'), and triggering a major depressive disorder. He sued the dog's owners in negligence. The main legal questions were whether the owners owed and breached a duty of care, and whether the dog had any known tendency to escape and approach people. The judge found the owners did owe a duty of care (rejecting their argument that an old 'highway' rule excluded it), but decided the plaintiff had not proven the owners knew or should have known the dog might escape and cause injury, as there was no evidence it had ever done so before. The claim was therefore dismissed. As is usual practice, the judge went on to notionally assess damages, which would have totalled about $105,000 had the plaintiff won.
Incident & injury
While walking his dog on the footpath opposite the defendants' residence, the defendants' Labrador ran out of the open driveway gate and caused the plaintiff to fall to the ground.
- Body regions
- Knee / lower leg, Right knee, Right lower leg/ankle (peroneal nerve), Psychiatric (Right)
- Diagnoses
- Minimally displaced lateral tibial plateau fracture (right tibia), Common peroneal nerve injury with partial peroneal nerve palsy / foot drop, Aggravated osteoarthritis right knee, Major Depressive Disorder (single episode, severe without psychosis), Basophobia (fear of falling)
- Incident date
- 8 July 2021
- Location
- Mountain Creek (footpath adjacent to defendants' residential property)
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 15 December 2025
- Claim type
- PIPA Public Liability
- Proceeding
- Trial
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 73
- Occupation
- Retired
- Liability
- Disputed
- ISV assessed
- 20 uplift applied · Item 135 (Schedule 4, Civil Liability Regulations 2014) — serious knee injury with foot drop
- Whole Person Impairment
- 15%
- Total damages
- $0
Outcome
The court entered judgment for the defendants and dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff failed to establish that the duty of care was breached because there was no evidence the dog had a propensity to leave the yard and approach passers-by. Damages were notionally assessed at $105,185.49 had liability been established.
Defendant
1 Stephen Keith Bartholomai and Kelly-Lee Fulton
Occupier / dog owner
- Judgment against this defendant
- $0
Heads of damage
| General damages | $40,500 |
|---|---|
| Past care (Griffiths v Kerkemeyer) | $22,185 |
| Future care | $15,793 |
| Past special damages (plaintiff) | $7,232 |
| Future special damages | $11,410 |
| Subtotal before refunds | $105,185 |
Key issues
Lockhart v Bartholomai & Anor [2025] QDC 202
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.