Butler v Barnfield Holdings Pty Ltd - [2000] WADC 322

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BUTLER -v- BARNFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2000] WADC 322

CORAM: KENNEDY DCJ

HEARD: 17-21 SEPTEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 4262 of 1998

BETWEEN: SONJA CHLOE BUTLER
Plaintiff
AND
BARNFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Employer/employee - Employee slipped on bin lid - Assessment of damage - Back injury requiring surgery - Subsequent pain and depression

Legislation:

~~Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943~~

Result:

Defendant negligent - Damages assessed at ~~$324,249.36~~ $328,749.36

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr B G Bradley
Defendant: Mr A J Power

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Moss Bradley
Defendant: Pullinger Redhead Stewart

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164

Case(s) also cited:

Astley v Austrust (1999) 73 ALJR 403
Black v MVIT [1986] WAR 32
Bowen v Tutte (1990) A Tort Rep 81-043
Commissioner for Railways v Halley (1978) 20 ALR 409
Commissioner of Railways v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563
Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1958] 1 QB 210
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81-192
Jury v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1935) 53 CLR 273
Keogh v Dom-Vie Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950649; 29 November 1995
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367
Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251
Toth v Yellow Express Carriers Ltd [1969] 2 NSWR 425
Wade v Allsop (1976) 10 ALR 353
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57

KENNEDY DCJ: The plaintiff alleges she was injured at work on 21 August 1996 when she slipped and fell on a rubbish bin lid. She sues her former employer for damages, for negligence and in contract. Liability is denied and quantum is an issue.
At the time of the incident the defendant carried on business as "Claremont Fresh Markets" ("Claremont Fresh"), the general manager of which was one Andrew Mulcahy. The plaintiff was 25 years old, a law graduate who started work in the deli section of Claremont Fresh toward the end of 1995 and became the manager of that section in about January 1996. The plaintiff had worked in food preparation or service of one type or another since high school and had run her own catering business from home, but as far as I am aware had no experience as a manager.
Her job involved ordering produce, preparing staff rosters, doing some work as a chef, arranging for a chef to take her place, serving on the counter and setting up the show cabinets. It was her job to meet with the Health Service Department Inspector and to…

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 Butler v Barnfield Holdings Pty 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: [2000] WADC 322
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Butler v Barnfield Holdings Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr. Butler, sued his employer, Barnfield Holdings Pty Ltd, for damages due to an injury he sustained in the workplace. The incident occurred when Mr. Butler slipped on a bin lid while at work, resulting in a back injury. He underwent surgery and experienced ongoing pain and depression. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue was whether the employer was negligent in maintaining a safe workplace and if this negligence led to Mr. Butler's injuries and subsequent suffering. The court had to determine the extent of the employer's liability for the injuries and the damages owed to the plaintiff.

The court assessed the employer's duty of care towards the employee, considering the nature of the workplace and the risks involved. It examined the circumstances of the accident, including the presence of the bin lid and the employer's knowledge of such hazards. The court also reviewed evidence regarding the adequacy of safety measures in place and whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to prevent such accidents. In evaluating the extent of damages, the court considered the medical evidence provided by both parties concerning the severity of the injury, the necessity of surgery, and the impact of the injury on Mr. Butler's physical and mental health.

The Supreme Court found that the employer was negligent in failing to ensure a safe working environment. The presence of the bin lid was deemed a foreseeable hazard, and the employer had not taken sufficient precautions to prevent its use as a tripping hazard. Consequently, the employer was held liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Butler. The court awarded damages for the medical expenses, loss of earnings, and ongoing pain and suffering. Additionally, it recognised the impact of the injury on Mr. Butler's mental health, granting compensation for the resulting depression. The court's decision emphasised the importance of employers maintaining safe workplaces to prevent accidents and mitigate potential legal consequences.

Orders