Forrest v John Mills Himself Pty Ltd - [1970] HCA 22

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McTiernan, Menzies and Owen JJ.

FORREST v. JOHN MILLS HIMSELF PTY. LTD.

(1970) 121 CLR 149

30 July 1970

Negligence

Negligence—Master and servant—Fencing of dangerous machinery—Extent and scope of statutory obligations to be "securely fenced"—The Inspection of Machinery Acts, 1951 to 1966 (Q.), s. 21 (2) (a).*

Decision

July 30.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:-
The appellant was the unsuccessful plaintiff in an action in the Supreme Court of Queensland whereby he sought damages for common law negligence or, alternatively, for breach of statutory duty on the part of his employer, the respondent company. (at p151)

2. What happened was simple enough. The plaintiff, who was repairing a guillotine in a printing works, dropped a spanner through a hole in the flooring through which a belt passed, down to the floor below. He went to retrieve it. Not finding the spanner in the open space on the lower floor, he, without stopping the machinery - as he might have done - squeezed between a brick wall and a revolving wheel carrying a belt into a cramped, unlighted corner of the premises to look for a spanner. There he lit a match and bent over a revolving shaft in the area directly below the aperture through which the spanner had dropped. His clothing was caught by the revolving shaft and he suffered injury. The plaintiff knew the area in which he suffered injury; he knew that his spanner might be there; he knew that area was dark and he knew that he could make it quite safe by stopping the machinery. (at p151)

3. The learned trial judge found that the narrow space between the wall and the revolving wheel effectively sealed off the area in question. His Honour said:

"For all practical purposes contact with the moving drive shaft within the recessed area was prevented, and in my opinion only a most untoward and unusual manoeuvre, such as was executed by the plaintiff, could result in a person's coming close to it in the relevant area. It seems to me that in this context it does not matter that the plaintiff by his caution succeeded in passing through the gap, because I do not think his employer could reasonably be expected to foresee such a manoeuvre or guard against it. . . . . . . The plaintiff was experienced and armed with authority. After going to the basement and failing to find the tool in any accessible place there was in my view no good reason why, had he wished to continue on with his search, he should not have switched off the motor. True, he would have had to return to the upper floor and walk 200 feet approximately, but his failure in this regard cannot be described as mere inadvertence. To enter as he did the particular area without taking what seems to be an elementary precaution was, in my opinion, the negligence which caused his injuries, even if one disregards…

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 Forrest v John Mills Himself Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Forrest v John Mills Himself [1970] HCA 22
Case: [1970] HCA 22
Decision Date: 30 July 1970

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between Forrest, the appellant, and John Mills Himself Pty Ltd, the respondent. The case involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had been negligent in the operation of its vehicle, and if so, whether the appellant had contributed to the accident through his own negligence. The court was required to assess the causal link between any proven negligence of the respondent and the appellant's injuries, and to determine the apportionment of blame if contributory negligence was established.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of negligence at common law. It examined the duty of care owed by drivers to other road users, the standard of care expected, and the concept of causation. The judges analysed the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the collision, including the speed and position of both vehicles, and the actions of each driver immediately prior to the impact. The court applied established legal tests to determine whether the respondent's conduct fell below the required standard of care and whether that breach caused the appellant's loss. Furthermore, the court considered whether the appellant's own actions constituted a failure to take reasonable care for his own safety, thereby contributing to his injuries.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the respondent had not been negligent and that the appellant had failed to establish a case for damages.

Orders