ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Employer and Employee-Negligence of employee-Liability of employer-Scope of
employment-Damage caused by fire-Disobedience of instructions as to place MELBOURNE,
where fire to be lighted. March 10, 11,
The defendant, who was the owner of certain grazing land, employed a servant to work on the land who was entitled, as part of his remuneration, to be supplied with cooked meat. On one occasion the servant was supplied with raw meat for his midday meal, and was instructed by the defendant to cook it at a certain house on the land. For the purpose of cooking the meat the servant, notwithstanding those instructions, lighted a fire at another place on the land nearer to where he was then working. By the negligence of the servant the fire escaped and spread to the land of the plaintiff and did damage
Held, by Isaacs and Higgins JJ. (Gavan Duffy J. dissenting), that in the cir- cumstances the lighting of the fire was within the scope of the servant's employment, and therefore that, notwithstanding the servant had disobeyed the instructions of the defendant as to the place where the fire should be lighted, the defendant was responsible for the consequences of his servant's negligence.
Per Higgins J. :-(1) The precise terms of the authority are not the criterion of liability: the function, the operation, the class of act to be done by the employee, is the criterion. (2) The decisions under the Workmen's Compensation Act are not safely applicable to cases where third parties are injured who are in no privity with either the employer or the employee.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Irvine C.J.): Bugge v. Brown, (1918) V.L.R., 413; 40 A.L.T., 24, reversed.
An action was brought in the Supreme Court by Albert Bugge against Oswald Richard John Brown in which, by his statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a farmer at Cope Cope; that on or about 27th December 1917 at Cope Cope the defendant by his servant or agent lit a fire upon certain land, or alternatively was guilty of negligence in that he lit a fire in such a place and under such circumstances and conditions that the said fire was likely to escape or get out of control and spread, and /or in that he failed to take any proper or sufficient steps to prevent the said fire from escaping, getting out of control or spreading; and that the said fire escaped, got out of control, and spread to the plaintiff's farm and occasioned damage amounting to £1,300 16s. 3d. The material defence of the defendant was that, if his servant or agent did light a fire or did fail to take such steps as were alleged in the statement of claim, he was not acting within the scope of his authority.
The action was heard by Irvine C.J., who, after hearing the evi-…
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 Bugge v Brown
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bugge v Brown [1919] HCA 5
Case
[1919] HCA 5
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bugge v Brown concerned a dispute between a farmer, Bugge, and his employee, Brown, arising from an incident where Brown suffered burns from a kerosene stove. Brown had been using the stove to heat a camp kitchen on Bugge's property, and it was alleged that Bugge had been negligent in failing to provide a safe appliance and a safe place for Brown to work. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Bugge owed a duty of care to Brown regarding the provision and use of the kerosene stove, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court was required to consider the principles of employer's liability and the standard of care expected of an employer in providing a safe working environment and equipment for their employees.
The High Court held that Bugge was liable for the injuries sustained by Brown. The court reasoned that an employer has a duty to take reasonable care to provide a safe system of work and safe appliances. In this instance, the employer had provided a kerosene stove which was inherently dangerous if used in the manner it was intended to be used, and had failed to provide adequate instructions or supervision for its safe operation. The court found that the employer had not discharged their duty of care, and therefore was liable for the resulting injuries.