Legal Research
Cases
Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter

Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter

Link copied

Case Copied 11 March 1968 39 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor and Owen JJ.

ARTHUR ROBINSON (GRAFTON) PTY. LTD. v. CARTER

(1968) 122 CLR 649

11 March 1968

Damages—Appeal and new trial

Damages—Personal injuries—Method of assessment—General principles—Quadriplegia. Appeal and new trial—Excessive damages—Personal injuries—Discretion—Manifestly excessive.

Decisions

1968, March 11
The following written judgments were delivered : -
BARWICK C.J. The respondent to this appeal obtained a verdict from a jury for the sum of $166,840 in an action in which he sued the appellant for damages for negligence in the management of a motor car in which he, the respondent, was a passenger. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was unsuccessfully moved for an order for a new trial on the ground that the amount of the verdict was excessive. The appellant now asks this Court on the same ground to set aside the verdict and to order a new trial limited to damages. (at p650)

2. There is no dispute as to the respondent's physical condition as the result of the overturning of the appellant's car after running off the Pacific Highway near Bulahdelah, north of Newcastle. To use the description of the learned trial judge, he is "almost a quadriplegic. He has paralysis below the chest level . . . and paraesis of both arms with the consequent disabilities that flow from such a dreadful incapacity." The physician who attended him in hospital with a considerable degree of success says in substance that he has now reached his maximum recovery. I extract the physician's principal conclusions as expressed by him in evidence.

"He has got, I think, full use of his shoulder girdle muscles and these are quite all right. . . . The patient is able to move his wrists. There is not much power in these movements of his wrist. . . . He has function in his thumbs and in his index finger, which is not a full function. Again there is not much power in it, but the movements are such that . . . they give him the possibility of gripping things even if this grip is not too strong. It is better on the left side. It is worse on the right side. He is very weak in his three last fingers on either side. . . . He has got a lot of wasting in his hands, small muscles which are enervated from the roots just below the area of lesion, but this amount of movement . . . allows him to hold, for instance, his shaving apparatus, if not shave himself, it allows him to light a cigarette, it allows him to feed himself . . . it should be qualified as only very partial use of his hands and fingers. . . . It is very restricted . . . first of all, from the power point of view . . . and also from the movement point of view, in the last fingers."

But, as the respondent said in evidence,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1968] HCA 9
Decision Date: 11 March 1968

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. Carter, who was employed by the appellant as a labourer. Mr. Carter suffered injuries when a concrete mixer he was operating overturned. The Supreme Court had found the appellant liable in negligence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant had breached its duty of care to Mr. Carter, and if so, whether that breach caused or contributed to his injuries. Specifically, the court considered whether the appellant had provided a safe system of work for operating the concrete mixer, including adequate instructions and supervision, and whether the mixer itself was inherently dangerous or defective in a way that the appellant should have foreseen.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that the appellant had failed to establish a safe system of work. The court reasoned that the employer had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to its employees, and this included providing adequate instructions and supervision, particularly when dealing with potentially dangerous machinery. The evidence indicated that Mr. Carter had not been properly instructed on the safe operation of the mixer, nor had he received sufficient supervision. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the employer's duty to provide a safe working environment and the foreseeability of the risk of injury. The overturning of the mixer was found to be a foreseeable consequence of the lack of proper training and supervision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was affirmed.

Orders