Negligence—Duty of care—Breach—Standard of care—Responsibility of competent tradesman to protect other competent tradesman from risk of injury—Relevance to standard of care of possibility of negligence or inadvertence by person to whom duty owed.
Decisions
MASON C.J., DEANE, DAWSON AND TOOHEY JJ. John Bus, who was an electrician and a co-shareholder and director of Bus &Dickison Pty. Limited, died on 22 April 1981 as a result of electrocution when he was engaged in the work of electrical installation at the factory premises of Metratex at Turrella. The appellant, the wife of the deceased, on behalf of herself and her three children, brought an action against the respondent Council, which is an electricity supply authority, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales claiming damages on the ground that the deceased's death was caused by the negligence of the Council. The action was heard by Wood J., who found that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent and entered a verdict for the respondent. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by majority (Hope and Priestley JJ.A., with McHugh J.A. dissenting). The appellant has appealed to this Court, the sole issue being that of negligence.
2. The work on which the deceased and his co-shareholder and director, Robert Dickison, were engaged was an extensive upgrading of existing facilities, including substantial modifications to the installations in the switchroom. The work had been in progress for some weeks prior to 22 April. That morning Mr Messina, a technician in the employ of the Council, arrived at the premises in order to carry out the necessary work on the Council's equipment in the switchroom. He took with him a complete service fuse cabinet to house the Council's fuses, a set of current transformers and new metering equipment. He brought with him a cover for the fuse cabinet and fillets which needed to be shaped before they could be fitted into place around the cables, to form the top and bottom of the cabinet.
3. Mr Dickison removed the wedges from the existing service fuses fixed to a wooden panel on a wall in the switchroom. The consumer mains on the incoming or line side were still live but the removal of the fuse wedges meant that the equipment on the consumer or load side was isolated and could be worked on. Mr Dickison and Mr Bus, who were both licensed electrical contractors, removed the existing current transformers from the lower part of the switchbox which was isolated. Mr Messina prepared the new metering equipment for installation and worked on a link box.
4. In the meantime, linesmen of the Council arrived and disconnected the consumer mains from the point of attachment outside the factory, cutting off the supply of power and permitting the work in the switchroom to proceed with complete safety. It was arranged…
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 Bus v Sydney County Council
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bus v Sydney County Council [1989] HCA 29
Case
[1989] HCA 29
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the plaintiff, Bus, against the Sydney County Council. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a fall from a ladder while working on the defendant's premises. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been negligent in failing to provide a safe system of work, specifically by failing to ensure the ladder was properly secured.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in relation to the provision and maintenance of a safe system of work, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court also had to consider the principles of contributory negligence and whether the plaintiff's own actions had contributed to his injuries.
The High Court, in its joint judgment, affirmed the principles of negligence established in cases such as *Donoghue v Stevenson*. Their Honours held that an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to persons lawfully on those premises to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. In this instance, the defendant, as occupier, had a duty to ensure that the work being undertaken on its premises by the plaintiff was conducted in a safe manner, which included ensuring that equipment provided or used on the premises was safe and properly maintained. The court found that the defendant had breached this duty by failing to take adequate precautions to secure the ladder, which was a foreseeable risk. The court also found that the plaintiff had been contributorily negligent in failing to ensure the ladder was stable before ascending it, and therefore reduced the damages awarded to reflect this.