Foster v Mount Isa Mines Ltd - [2000] QSC 399

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[2000] QSC 399 File No 182 of 1998

BETWEEN:

CRAIG STEPHEN FOSTER

First Plaintiff

AND:

TONI BURCHER

Second Plaintiff

AND:

MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED

(ACN 009 661 447)

First Defendant

AND:

MIM HOLDINGS LIMITED

(ACN 009 814 019)

Second Defendant

MOYNIHAN J – REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DELIVERED ON:	8 November 2000
HEARING DATES:	18 – 19 October 2000
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the first plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $ 476,956.78. 2. Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $ 5,000.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERAL MATTERS – plaintiff/wheel attendant/labourer injured in the course of employment – whether safe system of work – whether plaintiff contributory negligent – damages Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24, followed Parker v Dzundza [1979] Qd R 55, followed McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, followed Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301, followed Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act 1989, s 3 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989, s 9
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC with DJ Kelly for the plaintiffs RAI Myers for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Shine Roche McGowan for the plaintiffs Bowdens Lawyers for the defendants

The first plaintiff (it is convenient to refer to him as the plaintiff) was born on 18 March 1967. On 24 January 1995, in the course of his employment, he suffered a back injury and sues to recover damages. The second plaintiff was the plaintiff’s wife at the time of the accident and sues for loss of consortium.

The plaintiff was employed as a labourer or wheel attendant in the Mount Isa Mine’s Copper Refinery. The refinery works three shifts and the plaintiff was cleaning up towards the end of the night shift. To do that, he used a large diameter hose over a considerable area of floor depicted in various photographs and plans which are in evidence; although the area had changed since some of the photographs were taken. Exhibit 2 is a convenient reference point. The note that the position of the ladle is approximate should be borne in mind. The plaintiff’s approximate path is also depicted. The hose and the tap to which it is attached were associated with the top pillar marked on exhibit 2.

Essentially, I accept the plaintiff’s evidence. Towards the end of his task he was moving backwards towards the pillar to turn the tap off and store the hose. No doubt it could be convenient for a worker engaged as the plaintiff was, to move backwards from time to time, although it may not have been strictly necessary to do so.

As he moved backwards the plaintiff tripped over a ladle which was used in the production of copper anodes. The ladle was about “2½ to 3 metres long”, “about 3 feet wide” and “between 1 foot and 2 feet high”. It is not possible on the evidence to determine its precise position but, I am…

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 Foster v Mount Isa Mines Ltd

Details

AGLC: Foster v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2000] QSC 399
Case: [2000] QSC 399
Decision Date: 8 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Foster v Mount Isa Mines Ltd, the plaintiffs, two employees of a mining company, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in the course of their employment. The first plaintiff, who was a wheel attendant, was injured when a vehicle rolled backwards and struck him. The second plaintiff, a labourer, suffered injuries from being struck by the same vehicle as it rolled back. Both plaintiffs brought actions against the mining company and its subcontractor, alleging negligence on the part of the defendants in failing to implement a safe system of work and in their failure to warn of the dangers associated with the operation of the vehicles.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendants had breached their duty of care by not maintaining a safe system of work and whether the plaintiffs were contributory negligent. The court had to determine whether the defendants took reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees and whether the plaintiffs exercised reasonable care for their own safety. Additionally, the court needed to assess the extent to which the plaintiffs’ contributory negligence, if any, should reduce the damages they could recover.

The court found that the defendants had indeed breached their duty of care by failing to implement a safe system of work. They did not provide adequate training or supervision to the plaintiffs, and they did not take sufficient steps to prevent the vehicles from rolling backwards. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not contributory negligent in the circumstances of the accident. The plaintiffs had taken reasonable care for their own safety, and the risk of injury was not obvious to them. The court then assessed the damages, taking into account the extent of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiffs’ lives, and the defendants' liability.

The court awarded judgment to the plaintiffs against the defendants, ordering the defendants to pay damages to the first plaintiff in the amount of $476,956.78 and to the second plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. The court held that the defendants were liable for the full amount of the damages, as the plaintiffs were not found to be contributory negligent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the first plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $ 476,956.78.

2. Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $ 5,000.

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.