Aldridge v Marr Contracting Pty Ltd - [2013] NSWDC 290

District Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Aldridge v Marr Contracting Pty Ltd

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWDC 290

Decision Date: 22 August 2013

Before: Cogswell SC DCJ

Decision:
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the figure of $271,950.

Catchwords: CIVIL LAW - Torts - negligence - dogman rigger suffered severe hand injury on building site - breach of duty of care to employees - failure to provide appropriate equipment - no contributory negligence - Damages - reduction in working capacity - significant reduction in earning capacity.

Cases Cited: Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301.
Bourke v Butterfield and Lewis Ltd [1926] HCA 38; (1927) 38 CLR 354.
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; 79 ALJR 839.
Ghunaim v Bart [2004] NSWCA 28; Aust Torts Reports 81-731.
O'Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225.
Smith v Brambles Australia Ltd [2011] NSWSC 963.
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; 223 CLR 422.

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Raymond Aldridge (Plaintiff)
Marr Contracting Pty Ltd (Defendant)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
H Kelly SC, G Wilson (Plaintiff)
D Kelly (Defendant)

File Number(s): DC 2012/00002871

JUDGMENT

Introduction

Since he left school in year 10, Raymond Aldridge has worked in the building industry. He trained for a trade and became a ticketed dogman rigger. He has had a good career in that industry, but had an accident at work on 18 December 2008. The accident caused a severe injury to his right hand and he was forced off work for a few months. Despite the injury Mr Aldridge got back to work in his trade but found he was more restricted in what he could do and he thought that those restrictions were producing a loss in income.
Accordingly he sued the person he was employed by when he was injured. That person was a company called Marr Contracting Pty Ltd. Mr Aldridge says that the injury that happened to him was caused by Marr Contracting's negligence and that he should be awarded damages for his reduced earning capacity.

The claim

In his statement of claim Mr Aldridge described his accident as happening at a worksite at Botany Road in Alexandria. He said he was carrying out his work as a dogman and was guiding a heavy section of wall, which was being moved by a crane. The wall was to be positioned on the top of a foundation. The foundation had protruding steel reinforcing rods. The wall moved and Mr Aldridge attempted to bring it back to the appropriate position. The statement of claim then goes on to say that "the crane suddenly dropped the wall, and the plaintiff's hand was forced down onto a vertical steel reinforcing bar, which went through the centre of the plaintiff's right hand."

The issues

That is a neat encapsulation of what happened in the accident. I do not propose to add any more…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aldridge v Marr Contracting Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Aldridge v Marr Contracting Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 290
Case: [2013] NSWDC 290
Decision Date: 22 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Aldridge v Marr Contracting Pty Ltd involved a worker who sustained severe hand injuries on a building site. The plaintiff, a dogman rigger, was employed by the defendant, a contracting company. The injuries occurred when the plaintiff used a faulty stirrup pump. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for negligence, arguing that the company failed to provide appropriate equipment and thus breached its duty of care towards its employees. The defendant argued contributory negligence, but this was rejected by the court. The primary focus of the case was whether the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, the extent of the damages owed.

The court had to determine whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to provide appropriate equipment. Additionally, the court needed to assess the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the impact on his earning capacity, and whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The court needed to consider the statutory framework governing workplace safety and the common law principles of negligence.

The court held that the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide the plaintiff with suitable equipment. The court found that the stirrup pump was defective, and the defendant was aware or ought to have been aware of the defect. The court rejected the argument of contributory negligence, finding that the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to ensure his own safety. The court assessed the plaintiff's injuries and determined a significant reduction in his earning capacity. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $271,950, reflecting the impact of his injuries on his ability to work and earn.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the figure of $271,950.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Case Title:	Aldridge v Marr Contracting Pty Ltd
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2013] NSWDC 290
Decision Date:	22 August 2013
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the figure of $271,950.
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW - Torts - negligence - dogman rigger suffered severe hand injury on building site - breach of duty of care to employees - failure to provide appropriate equipment - no contributory negligence - Damages - reduction in working capacity - significant reduction in earning capacity.
Cases Cited:	Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301. Bourke v Butterfield and Lewis Ltd [1926] HCA 38; (1927) 38 CLR 354. Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; 79 ALJR 839. Ghunaim v Bart [2004] NSWCA 28; Aust Torts Reports 81-731. O'Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225. Smith v Brambles Australia Ltd [2011] NSWSC 963. Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; 223 CLR 422.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Raymond Aldridge (Plaintiff) Marr Contracting Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation
- Counsel:	Counsel: H Kelly SC, G Wilson (Plaintiff) D Kelly (Defendant)
File Number(s):	DC 2012/00002871