Griggs v Elsegood Holdings Pty Ltd - [2014] WADC 165

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: GRIGGS -v- ELSEGOOD HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2014] WADC 165

CORAM: KEEN DCJ

HEARD: 13-22 OCTOBER 2014

DELIVERED : 11 DECEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 91 of 2013

BETWEEN: MICHAEL WILLIAM GRIGGS
Plaintiff
AND
ELSEGOOD HOLDINGS PTY LTD
COMBINED METAL INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Defendants

Catchwords:

Negligence - Employer and employee

Damages - Whether permanent whole of person impairment and extent

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Plaintiff's case dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr T J Hammond
Defendants: Mr D J Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Simon Walters
Defendants: SRB Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis (2010) 240 CLR 111
Armitage v Tenix Defence Pty Ltd [2008] WADC 150
Lyle v SOC [2009] WASCA 3
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sproules (2001) 52 NSWLR 707
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd (1995) 12 WAR 370
Rooke v Minister for Health [2009] WASCA 27
Shorey v PT Limited [2003] HCA 27
Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

KEEN DCJ: The plaintiff claims damages for injuries that he sustained on 18 August 2010.
At the material time, the plaintiff was working for the defendant as a truck driver. He drove a 12‑tonne rigid tray truck with a Hiab crane attached.
His duties involved delivering metal products manufactured by the defendant to various customers.
On any particular day he would be required to make a number of deliveries to different destinations. His truck would be loaded the night before at the employer's premises. The truck was generally loaded so that the last items to be delivered the following day would be put on the truck first, and the first items to be delivered would be placed on the truck last.
The drivers employed by the defendant did not become involved in the loading of the truck. There were loaders who were employed for this purpose and the drivers stayed away from the truck until it was loaded. It was then that the drivers would receive from the office the delivery sheets comprising a running sheet of the various deliveries to be made that day and the delivery notes for each destination.
Normally trucks would be loaded by 7.00 am and ready to leave the defendant's yard. On the day in question the plaintiff's truck had not been fully loaded the night before. The loading was not completed until sometime after 10.00 am. The plaintiff was working alone.
The load on this particular day included rectangular downpipes in packs of 10 bound together. They weighed approximately 20 kg per pack.
On this day, one pack of downpipes is said to have been placed in the middle of the truck and access to it was difficult.
It was while…

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 Griggs v Elsegood Holdings Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Griggs v Elsegood Holdings Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 165
Case: [2014] WADC 165
Decision Date: 11 DECEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Griggs v Elsegood Holdings Pty Ltd was a case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the plaintiff, Griggs, sought damages from the defendant, Elsegood Holdings Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained during employment. The dispute centred around the extent of the plaintiff's permanent whole of person impairment, which was pivotal in determining the amount of damages awarded. The case was heard by Justice Leeming.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the precise nature and extent of the plaintiff's permanent whole of person impairment. The plaintiff argued for a higher degree of impairment, while the defendant contended that the impairment was less severe than claimed. This issue required careful consideration of medical evidence and the application of legal principles regarding impairment assessment and the calculation of damages.

Justice Leeming examined the medical evidence presented by both parties and assessed the degree of impairment based on the facts of the case. The judge concluded that the plaintiff's impairment was significant but did not reach the level of permanent whole of person impairment claimed. The court found that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent partial impairment, which led to a reduction in the damages awarded. The judge's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the medical reports and expert testimony, ensuring that the outcome was grounded in the specific circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff a reduced amount of damages, reflecting the determined degree of impairment. The judgment highlighted the importance of a tailored approach to impairment assessment, emphasising that each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

Orders