Connors v Simplot Pty Limited

[2001] NSWCA 205

CITATION:	Connors v Simplot Pty Limited [2001] NSWCA 205
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40990/99
HEARING DATE(S):	22 March 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	29 June 2001
PARTIES :	Terrence James Connors Simplot Australia Pty Limited t/as Herbert Adams Bakeries
JUDGMENT OF:	Priestley JA at 1; Powell JA at 2; Beazley JA at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	92/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Delaney DCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellant: BM Toomey QC/G R Graham Respondent: J Hislop QC/A McInerney
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: Bell & Partners Respondent: Moray & Agnew
CATCHWORDS:	Workers Compensation - Negligence - Employer and Employee - Duty of Care - Safe System of Work - Breach of Duty - Causation
LEGISLATION CITED:	Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW): ss 151B, 151M Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	Vozza v Tooth & Co Limited (1964) 112 CLR 316 Nair v Health Administration Corporation (1994) Aust Torts Rep 81-312 Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438 Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423 Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431 Bankstown Foundry Pty Limited v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 Morgan v Shenton Pty Ltd (1999) 46 NSWLR 141 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 Ahmedi v Ahmedi (1991) 23 NSWLR 288
DECISION:	Appeal Allowed

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40990/99
DC 92/98

PRIESTLEY JA
POWELL JA
BEAZLEY JA

29 June 2001


CONNORS v SIMPLOT PTY LIMITED



FACTS

The appellant sustained an injury to his back during the course of his employment with the respondent when he lifted a fully laden tray of cakes from ankle height during the course of a production run of cakes which took place about once a week. The task involved bending, lifting and twisting his lower back on a repetitive basis. The respondent had introduced a system of job rotation so that this particular lifting task was interspersed with other tasks which did not involve stress on the lower spine on about an hourly basis.

The trial judge found that the respondent had not breached its duty of care to the appellant and that the appellant’s injury had not been caused by any work related incident.

HELD per Beazley JA (Priestley JA and Powell JA agreeing)

(i) There was no issue that the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care to provide a safe system of work. In the present case, the question was whether there was a breach of that duty: Vozza v Tooth & Co Limited (1964) 112 CLR 316; Bankstown Foundry Pty Limited v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301.

(ii) His Honour erred in applying, as specifying the requisite standard of care owed by an employer, the statements of the High Court in the non-employment cases of Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423, Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431 and Morgan v Sherton Pty Ltd (1999) 46 NSWLR 141.

(iii) His…