Blondel v Wesfarmers CSBP Ltd - [2003] WADC 5

BLONDEL -v- WESFARMERS CSBP LTD [2003] WADC 5

Last Update: 22/01/2003

BLONDEL -v- WESFARMERS CSBP LTD [2003] WADC 5
Link to Appeal:	[2004] WASCA 117
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 5
Case No:	CIV:3216/1999	Heard:	27-31 MAY 2002, 26, 28-29 AUGUST 2002
Coram:	DEANE DCJ	Delivered:	16/01/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	46	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Defendant liable in negligence for first accident but not for second accident - , Damages assessed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	EMMANUEL BERNARD BLONDEL WESFARMERS CSBP LTD
Catchwords:	Personal injury Liability and quantum of damages in issue Two alleged work related accidents in 1994 and 1997 Whether in either or both instances employer negligent Alleged breaches of contract of employment Whether plaintiff contributorily negligent relevant to either alleged accident Whether the second alleged injury exacerbated the symptoms of the first alleged injury Whether plaintiff suffered pre-existing neck, shoulder and back problems unrelated to his employment Claim for non-pecuniary loss, past and future economic loss, past and future gratuitous services and past and future medical expenses Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Occupational Health Safety & Welfare Act 1984, s 19
Case References:	Nil Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1960) 160 CLR 301 Castro v Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd (1983) 57 ALJR 619 Crombie v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (WA) (1997) 17 WAR 291 Duzevich v Carrier Airconditioning Pty Ltd [2000] WADC 277 Electric Power Transmission Pty Ltd v Cuiuli (1960) 104 CLR 177 Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 Jones v Dunkel & Anor (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lewis v High Duty Alloys Ltd [1957] All ER 740 McLean v Tedman & Anor (1984) 56 ALR 359 Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) ALJR 492 Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121 Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24 Ta v Lucky Import & Export Co Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 65 The Council of the Shire of Wyong v Shirt & Ors (1981) 146 CLR 40 Turner v State of South Australia (1982) 42 ALJR 669 Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316 Willis v CRA Exploration Pty Ltd (1984) A Tort Rep 80-521

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : BLONDEL -v- WESFARMERS CSBP LTD [2003] WADC 5 CORAM : DEANE DCJ HEARD : 27-31 MAY 2002, 26, 28-29 AUGUST 2002 DELIVERED : 16 JANUARY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 3216 of 1999 BETWEEN : EMMANUEL BERNARD BLONDEL

Plaintiff

AND

WESFARMERS CSBP LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Personal injury - Liability and quantum of damages in issue - Two alleged work related accidents in 1994 and 1997 - Whether in either or both instances employer negligent - Alleged breaches of contract of employment - Whether plaintiff contributorily negligent relevant to either alleged accident - Whether the second alleged injury exacerbated the symptoms of the first alleged…

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 Blondel v Wesfarmers CSBP Ltd 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: [2003] WADC 5
Decision Date: 16 JANUARY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blondel v Wesfarmers CSBP Ltd involved the plaintiff, Blondel, suing the defendant, Wesfarmers CSBP Ltd, for damages resulting from two alleged work-related accidents. The first accident occurred in 1994 and the second in 1997. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in both instances, leading to personal injury and various forms of loss, including non-pecuniary loss, past and future economic loss, past and future gratuitous services, and past and future medical expenses. The court had to determine whether the defendant was liable for negligence in each accident, if any, and whether the plaintiff had been contributorily negligent in either instance. The court also needed to assess whether the second alleged injury exacerbated the symptoms of the first and whether the plaintiff suffered from pre-existing neck, shoulder, and back problems unrelated to his employment.

The court's analysis focused on whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of their contractual obligations to the plaintiff, specifically concerning workplace safety. In determining liability, the court had to consider the evidence regarding the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and their potential impact on his recovery from the alleged work-related injuries. The court examined whether the injuries from the 1994 incident were exacerbated by the 1997 incident and how these injuries, if any, related to the plaintiff's employment. The court needed to weigh the evidence of contributory negligence and assess the extent of the plaintiff's damages, including the impact of any pre-existing conditions on the injuries claimed.

The court found that the defendant was liable for negligence in the first accident but not in the second. The reasoning was based on the evidence that the employer did not breach their duty of care in the second accident, and there was no evidence that the second accident exacerbated the first. The court also determined that the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions did not significantly impact the injuries resulting from the first accident. The court assessed the damages, taking into account the plaintiff's contributory negligence, and calculated the compensation for the non-pecuniary loss, economic loss, and medical expenses. The final orders included the defendant's liability for the first accident and the assessment of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant liable in negligence for first accident but not for second accident - , Damages assessed

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.