CITATION: Boyded Industries P/L v Canuto [2004] NSWCA 256 HEARING DATE(S): 9 March 2004 JUDGMENT DATE:
30 July 2004JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Santow JA at 32; Stein AJA at 66 DECISION: Appeal allowed with costs. CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - respondent/employee injured herself when glass shattered after she sat on glass table at used car premises occupied by appellant/quasi-employer - respondent employed by owner of the premises Auburn Services Trust - whether the appellant or Auburn Services Trust was liable in negligence either as, or with duties equivalent to, the employer of employee - at time of accident appellant accepted employee had worked at those premises under its direction, supervision and control - whether respondent was contributorily negligent - extent of duty of care to maintain safe system of work - distinction between maintaining safe system of work and simple uncomplicated operation within normal system of work involving obvious danger in ordinary commonsense. - CAUSATION - whether causation and breach of duty were before trial judge - whether warning sign or verbal warnings would have averted accident - Van der Sluice considered - whether unsafe practice had developed - provision of safe working environment. CASES CITED: Andar Transport Pty Limited v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28
Bankstown Foundry Pty. Ltd. v. Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Bourke v. Butterfield & Lewis Ltd (1927) 38 CLR 354
Bus v. Sydney City Council (1989) 167 CLR 78
Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 207 ALR 52
Davies v. Adelaide Chemical & Fertilizer Co. Ltd. (1946) 74 CLR 541
Ghantous v. Hawkesbury Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Ghunaim v Bart [2004] NSWCA 28
Hamilton v. Nuroof (W.A.) Pty. Ltd. (1956) 96 CLR 18
Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver (2001) 179 ALR 321
McLean v. Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty. Limited (1987) 163 CLR 611
Parsons v Randwick Municipal Council [2003] NSWCA 171
Sungravure Pty. Ltd. v. Meani [1964] 110 CLR 24
TNT Australia Pty Limited v Christie & Ors (2003) NSWCA 47
Twynam Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Bennett [2002] NSWCA 319
Van Der Sluice v Display Craft Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 204
Waverley Municipal Council v Swain [2003] NSWCA 61
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Limited (2002) 208 CLR 460
Wyong Shire Council v Short (1980) 146 CLR 40PARTIES :
BOYDED INDUSTRIES PTY LTD t/as Boyded Parramatta (Appellant)
Grace CANUTO (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40077/03 COUNSEL: C R R HOEBEN, SC (Appellant)
G B HALL, QC/ C LOCKE (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Curwood & Partners (Appellant)
Velleley & Associates (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 5492/00 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Dodd DCJ
CA 40077/03
DC 5492/0030 JULY 2004BEAZLEY JA
SANTOW JA
STEIN AJA
BOYDED INDUSTRIES PTY LTD t/as Boyded Parramatta v Grace CANUTO
Judgment
1 BEAZLEY JA: The respondent sued the appellant for injuries she received whilst working as a customer relations manager for a new and used car dealer known as Boyded Holden.…
Continue reading Boyded Industries Pty Ltd v Canuto
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Boyded Industries Pty Ltd v Canuto [2004] NSWCA 256
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 256
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Boyded Industries Pty Ltd (appellant) and Ms Canuto (respondent) were the parties involved in this matter before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned Ms Canuto's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained when a glass table shattered after she sat on it at used car premises. Ms Canuto was employed by Auburn Services Trust, but at the time of the accident, the appellant accepted that she had been working at those premises under its direction, supervision, and control, raising questions about the appellant's quasi-employer status and liability.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent as an employee, or with duties equivalent to an employer, and whether this duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to determine the extent of the duty of care to maintain a safe system of work, distinguishing this from a simple, uncomplicated operation involving an obvious danger. Causation of the respondent's injuries by any breach of duty was also a key issue, as was the question of whether the respondent had been contributorily negligent. The court also considered whether a warning sign or verbal warnings would have averted the accident and whether an unsafe practice had developed.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that the appellant was liable in negligence. The court reasoned that while the appellant may have had some direction and control over the respondent's work, it did not assume the full duties of an employer. The court distinguished between the duty to maintain a safe system of work and the circumstances of an uncomplicated operation where an obvious danger might exist. The court determined that the appellant had not breached its duty of care to the respondent and that causation had not been established.
The appeal was allowed with costs.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent as an employee, or with duties equivalent to an employer, and whether this duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to determine the extent of the duty of care to maintain a safe system of work, distinguishing this from a simple, uncomplicated operation involving an obvious danger. Causation of the respondent's injuries by any breach of duty was also a key issue, as was the question of whether the respondent had been contributorily negligent. The court also considered whether a warning sign or verbal warnings would have averted the accident and whether an unsafe practice had developed.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that the appellant was liable in negligence. The court reasoned that while the appellant may have had some direction and control over the respondent's work, it did not assume the full duties of an employer. The court distinguished between the duty to maintain a safe system of work and the circumstances of an uncomplicated operation where an obvious danger might exist. The court determined that the appellant had not breached its duty of care to the respondent and that causation had not been established.
The appeal was allowed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed with costs.
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.