Craig Riley v Chubb Security Services Ltd (No. 2) - [2008] NSWDC 80

CITATION: Craig Riley v Chubb Security Services Ltd and Anor (No. 2) [2008] NSWDC 80

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2007 - 21 February 2007, 3 March 2008 - 7 March 2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 7 March 2008

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Neilson DCJ at 1

DECISION: Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $266,064.82. I order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. I order the second defendant to pay its own costs

CATCHWORDS: Motor Vehicle Accident - Contributory Negligence - Plaintiff was a rear guard in an armoured vehicle owned by the defendant - Both Plaintiff and driver were employed by the defendant - Plaintiff injured after being struck on head by an internal door between the driver's compartment and rear compartment of the vehicle - Vehicle in motion at the time - Whether this was an injury as defined in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 s 7 - Held: the injury was one to which the MAC Act applied as the driver was negligent in driving whilst the door was unsecured and when he ought to have known that at least part of the plaintiff's body was in the path of the swinging door - Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 336 - Emad Trolley Pty Ltd v Shigar (2003) 57 NSWLR 636 - Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568 - Toll Pty Ltd v Dakic [2006] NSWCA 58 - Inasmuch Community Inc v Bright [2006] NSWCA 99 - Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529 - Held: alleged defects in the vehicle were not the proximate cause of the injury - Whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by doing a required work task prematurely, prior to arrival at the site where work activity was to be carried out - Held: Plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as he was completely inexperienced on the route undertaken on the day of injury. He erroneously assumed that he had arrived at the appropriate place. To hold that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence would negate the liability of the more experienced driver of the vehicle who was familiar with the route and failed to give any warning of his driving forward uphill or failed to pause whilst the plaintiff completed his work task - Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152 - Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 224 - Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 - Fleming, Law of Torts, 8th Ed.,1992, p. 516 - Plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt - Held: under MAC Act s 138(3), plaintiff's damages ought be reduced by 0% as there was no evidence of any causal relationship between the failure to wear the seatbelt and the plaintiff's injury - Nicholson v Nicholson (1994) 35 NSWLR 308

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workplace Injury and Management Workers Compensation Act 1998

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 Craig Riley v Chubb Security Services Ltd (No. 2) 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: [2008] NSWDC 80
Decision Date: 7 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Riley, an employee of Chubb Security Services Ltd, sued the company after being injured while performing his duties as the rear guard of an armoured vehicle. The vehicle was in motion when Riley was struck on the head by an unsecured internal door, leading to an injury that necessitated a claim under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The primary legal issue was whether Riley's injury qualified as an accident within the meaning of the Act, given that the vehicle was moving at the time. A further issue was whether Riley's own actions contributed to the accident, particularly his failure to wear a seatbelt and his premature execution of a work task.

The court found that the driver's negligence in driving while the door was unsecured, and without warning Riley that his body was in the path of the swinging door, rendered the driver liable under the Act. The court held that Riley's inexperience with the route did not amount to contributory negligence, as he had reasonably assumed he had arrived at the correct destination. Additionally, the court ruled that the failure to wear a seatbelt did not causally contribute to Riley's injury, thus his damages were not to be reduced under section 138(3) of the Act.

In its judgment, the court awarded Riley $266,064.82 in damages, ordering Chubb Security Services Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings. The court also directed the second defendant to bear its own costs. This ruling underscores the importance of vehicle security and driver awareness in preventing workplace accidents, while also highlighting the protection afforded to employees under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $266,064.82. I order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. I order the second defendant to pay its own costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Craig Riley v Chubb Security Services Ltd and Anor (No. 2) [2008] NSWDC 80
HEARING DATE(S):	20 February 2007 - 21 February 2007, 3 March 2008 - 7 March 2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	7 March 2008
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Neilson DCJ at 1
DECISION:	Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $266,064.82. I order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. I order the second defendant to pay its own costs
CATCHWORDS:	Motor Vehicle Accident - Contributory Negligence - Plaintiff was a rear guard in an armoured vehicle owned by the defendant - Both Plaintiff and driver were employed by the defendant - Plaintiff injured after being struck on head by an internal door between the driver's compartment and rear compartment of the vehicle - Vehicle in motion at the time - Whether this was an injury as defined in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 s 7 - Held: the injury was one to which the MAC Act applied as the driver was negligent in driving whilst the door was unsecured and when he ought to have known that at least part of the plaintiff's body was in the path of the swinging door - Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 336 - Emad Trolley Pty Ltd v Shigar (2003) 57 NSWLR 636 - Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568 - Toll Pty Ltd v Dakic [2006] NSWCA 58 - Inasmuch Community Inc v Bright [2006] NSWCA 99 - Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529 - Held: alleged defects in the vehicle were not the proximate cause of the injury - Whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by doing a required work task prematurely, prior to arrival at the site where work activity was to be carried out - Held: Plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as he was completely inexperienced on the route undertaken on the day of injury. He erroneously assumed that he had arrived at the appropriate place. To hold that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence would negate the liability of the more experienced driver of the vehicle who was familiar with the route and failed to give any warning of his driving forward uphill or failed to pause whilst the plaintiff completed his work task - Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152 - Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 224 - Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 - Fleming, Law of Torts, 8th Ed.,1992, p. 516 - Plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt - Held: under MAC Act s 138(3), plaintiff's damages ought be reduced by 0% as there was no evidence of any causal relationship between the failure to wear the seatbelt and the plaintiff's injury - Nicholson v Nicholson (1994) 35 NSWLR 308
LEGISLATION CITED:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Workers Compensation Act 1987 Workplace Injury and Management Workers Compensation Act 1998