Cooper v Southern Portland Cement Ltd - [1972] HCA 28

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

. Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Owen and Walsh JJ. (THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE OWEN died before the delivery of judgment in this case.)

COOPER v. SOUTHERN PORTLAND CEMENT LTD.

(1972) 128 CLR 427

5 May 1972

Negligence

Negligence—Dangerous premises—Injury to person entering—Liability of occupier—Duty of care—Trespasser—Licensee—Child playing on land—Allurement.

Decisions

May 5.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. This appeal, brought by a plaintiff in an action at law in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision, by majority of the Court of Appeal Division of that Court, entering a verdict for the defendant in the action (1971) 1 NSWLR 820 , raises the question whether the defendant, an occupier of land, may be held, in the circumstances, to be liable to a trespasser upon that land, and if so on what basis, for injuries received there by the trespasser as the result of acts and omissions which, but for the relationship of occupier and trespasser, could be held to amount to negligence on the part of the defendant. (at p432)

2. The appellant sued the respondent in five counts. By the first count he alleged that he was on the respondent's land with the leave and licence of the respondent and that there was on the land a concealed danger or trap the existence of which the respondent well knew and which caused injury to the appellant. (at p432)

3. By the second count the appellant alleged that the respondent's premises were frequented by "strangers" and openly used by other people and that there was, to the knowledge of the respondent, a great likelihood of boys and other persons coming and being upon the premises and that in those circumstances the respondent recklessly created and continued in existence a specific peril seriously menacing the safety of the said persons and that the appellant was a boy who came onto the said premises and in the vicinity of the said peril and thereby sustained injury. (at p432)

4. By the third count the appellant alleged that there was on the respondent's premises a heap of rubble which constituted an allurement to children, was negligently allowed to be in close proximity to a high tension electricity line, and which in fact allured the appellant upon the said land whereby he became injured. (at p432)

5. By the fourth and fifth counts the appellant alleged breaches of certain provisions of the Mines Inspection Act, 1901-1968 (N.S.W.) (at p432)

6. The learned trial judge, who presided at the trial of the action with a jury of four persons, allowed only the third count to go to the jury directing a verdict for the respondent on all the other counts. Upon an appeal by the respondent to the Court of Appeal Division of the Supreme Court the verdict which the jury returned for the appellant on the third count for the sum of $56,880 was set aside and a verdict entered on that count…

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 Cooper v Southern Portland Cement 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: [1972] HCA 28
Decision Date: 5 May 1972

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cooper, the plaintiff, brought an action against Southern Portland Cement Ltd, the defendant, in the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's alleged negligence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty had been breached, thereby causing the plaintiff's injuries. The court was required to consider the principles of negligence, particularly in the context of an employer's duty to provide a safe working environment for its employees.

The High Court, in its judgment, affirmed the principles of negligence as established in common law. It was held that an employer owes a duty to its employees to take reasonable care for their safety. This duty encompasses providing safe plant and equipment, a safe system of work, and adequate supervision and instruction. The court examined the specific circumstances of the plaintiff's employment and the accident, applying these established principles to determine whether the defendant had acted reasonably in the circumstances. The court considered the foreseeability of the risk of injury and the adequacy of the precautions taken by the defendant.

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, finding that the defendant had not breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.

Orders