Gurnett v Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a personal injury claim brought by Cecil Lawrence Gurnett, a stevedore's labourer, against his employer, The Macquarie Stevedoring Co. Pty. Ltd. Gurnett sustained fractures to both forearms when he fell from a gantry while discharging cargo from a ship. He alleged negligence on the part of the stevedoring company, specifically the failure to provide safety nets and ensure gantry flaps were upright. At the close of Gurnett's case, the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant, a decision upheld by the Full Court of the Supreme Court, albeit with dissenting opinions.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support Gurnett's cause of action, thereby warranting its submission to a jury. Specifically, the court had to determine if the absence of a safety net, which was a customary precaution, could be considered a material cause of Gurnett's injuries, given the circumstances of his fall. The plaintiff's evidence suggested that as he was being dragged by a hook caught in his glove, he had to make a choice between falling to the wharf below or attempting to reach the ship's side.

The High Court reasoned that if Gurnett's evidence was accepted, it could establish that the absence of a safety net exposed him to the danger of falling to the concrete wharf, a significant distance below. In such an emergency, the court held, his instinctive attempt to avoid this fall by making for the ship's side, even if it resulted in him falling onto the deck in a manner that caused injury, could be considered a reasonable course of action in the circumstances. Therefore, the absence of the net could be a material cause of his injuries. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence, though potentially thin, was sufficient to allow a jury to infer that the absence of the net influenced his actions and contributed to his injuries.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Full Court, and ordered a new trial of the action.