Have any questions? Call us: 
At about 7.00 am in July 2021, Harold Lockhart, then aged 73, was walking his Cavoodle along the footpath opposite a residential property in Mountain Creek on the Sunshine Coast.
Lockhart was an active retiree who walked several kilometres each day and was well-known in the neighbourhood.
As he passed the defendants’ house, a three-year-old Labrador named Jaeger emerged through an open vehicular driveway gate. The gate was open because Kelly-Lee Fulton – one of the occupiers – was in the process of reversing her car out to leave for work.
Jaeger ran towards Lockhart. What followed took only seconds. Lockhart fell heavily to the ground. Whether the dog physically collided with him or caused him to stumble while trying to avoid it was disputed, but it was common ground that Jaeger had escaped the yard, approached Lockhart, and that Lockhart fell and was injured.
The injuries were serious for a man of his age: a minimally displaced lateral tibial plateau fracture to his right leg, damage to the common peroneal nerve resulting in a foot drop, and a deterioration in his pre-existing osteoarthritis.
He also developed a major depressive disorder and significant anxiety about falling again.
His treatment involved hospital admission, imaging, conservative orthopaedic management, ongoing pain medication, physiotherapy, the use of splints and braces, and later psychiatric and psychological care.
The foot drop never fully resolved. Years after the incident, Lockhart still struggled with walking distances, household chores, gardening, pool maintenance, and activities that had previously defined his independence and daily routine.
He filed court proceedings against the dog’s keepers, Fulton and her partner Stephen Bartholomai in early 2023.
Their home insurer accepted they had responsibility for Jaeger’s care but denied negligence.
Their primary defence relied on the so-called “highway rule” under which occupiers are generally not liable for damage caused by animals straying onto a highway.
Unlike most Australian jurisdictions, Queensland has not abolished the ancient common-law rule.
The insurer argued that this was a classic highway case: Jaeger escaped onto a public thoroughfare, and thus no duty of care arose.
The trial judge Michael Byrne KC DCJ rejected that characterisation. Although Lockhart was close to the road, Lockhart had been standing on the grass verge between the footpath and the gutter, not on the roadway itself.
He refused to extend the highway rule – one rooted in agricultural conditions of centuries past – beyond its narrow historical boundaries.
As a result, the ordinary principles of animal liability applied.
Lockhart thus had to prove that Jaeger – a large dog, weighing around 30–35 kilograms -had a propensity to escape and approach passers-by in a way that created a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of injury, and that the defendants knew or ought to have known of that propensity.
There was no evidence that the canine had ever previously run out through the open gate when cars entered or exited. There was no history of complaints, no prior incidents, and no expert evidence suggesting Labradors of that age and training had a known propensity to bolt towards pedestrians.
During a visit from a council investigator more than a month later, Jaeger excitedly ran out of a gate and jumped up at her. This was – in the court’s view – insufficient to prove he had that propensity on the morning of the incident.
Without proof of a known or knowable risk, the court concluded that the defendants were not in breach of their duty and the claim was dismissed.
In a precautionary assessment of damages, Lockhart’s general damages were assessed at $40,500, reflecting a combined whole person impairment of 15% for the knee fracture and foot drop, with an uplift for the psychiatric injury.
Gratuitous care provided by his partner—cleaning, cooking, shopping, and household maintenance—would have attracted substantial awards both past and future, recognising the loss of autonomy suffered by an elderly but previously active man.
Damages in excess of $105,000 would have been Lockhart’s award had the relevant propensity to escape been proved.
Lockhart v Bartholomai & Anor [2025] QDC 202 Byrne KC DCJ, 15 December 2025
Categories: Road & footpath injuries