H 1976 Nominees Pty Ltd v Galli

[1979] FCA 74

CATCHVJORDS

Negligence - employer's duty to provide a safe system of work - adequacy of employer's instructions to employees - contributory negligence - findlngs of trial judge -

function of appellate court.

Monad (~onstructions) Pty. Limited v. James Matthew Fernmce

Coram:	Smithers, Blackburn and Franlci JJ.
25 July 1979
Canberra

,

I>? THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

B E T W E E N:

MONAD(CONSTRUCTIONS)

PTY. LIMITED

A p p e l l a n t

A hT D: JAiTES FIATTHEW FERNDTCE

R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

JUDGES MPXIWG ORDER: S r n i t h e r s , B l a c k b u r n a n d F r a n k i JJ.

DATE OF ORDER: 25 July 1979

WHERE IfTDE: C a n b e r r a

The C o u r t o r d e r s that :

1. The appeal b e d i s m i s s e d w i t h c a s t s .

. .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT O F A U S T R L L I A 1

AUSTRALIAN C A P I T A L T E R R I T O R Y

A . C ~ N o f O ~ 1979 ~

D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y I

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREHE COURT

O F THF. AUSTRALIAN C A P I T A L T E R R I T O R Y

B E T W E E N:

MONAD (CONSTRUCTIONS)PTY.

L I M I T E D

A p p e l l a n t

br D: J . M E S MATTFIE?! FERNPI'JCE

R e s p o n d e n t

. .

, I ,

C O W N :	Sn l the r s ,	B l a c l i b u r n and	Frank1 ZJ.
CANBERRA

25 July 1979

!

1

RZP.SONS FOR JUDGPEIqT	t	l
i l

I n t h i s appea l from t h e Supreme Court of t h e

A u s t r a l i a n	C a p i t a l	Territory	t h e	appcllarl l;	+Ionad	( ~ o n s t r u c t l o n s )	!	i
I

Pty. Limited h a s t h e first defendant t o a c l a m f o r damages by t h e 1

respondent klr. Jarnes :vIatthe~: F e r n a c e . :cr. ~ i r g l n a l d Davls was t h e

second defendant . The r e s ~ o n d e n l ; c l o l n c d tha-i h l s employer, t h e

appe l l en t , had been negl igenx 2nd t h n t h? hcd s u f f e r e d l n j u r y thereby .

The l e a r n e d t r l a l judge found t h a t t h e respondent I

was l n j u r e d on 14 September 1972 i n t h e manner which he I

desc r ibed i n evidence. The respondent s a i d t h a t he and Davis

were unloading a h e a ~ y g . d l v n l ? e d l r c n shed, t'ne p r o p e r t y

I

of h l s employer, from t h e back of a t r u c k a l s o owned by h i s

employer. I n t h e course of unloeding., a s t h c respondent p u t i t ,

he momentarily ''copped t h e welght l l , tile e x a c t amounz o f which

i s n o t known, bu t t h e shed ~welghed ;?bout 580 l b s . The r e s u l t

was t h e respondent s u f f e r e d a s e r i o u s l n j u r y t o h i s back. He

claimed t h a t ~ h l s a c c l d e n t was t h e r e s u l t o f a f a i l u r e by h l s

employer t o t a k e r ~ a s o n a b l e c a r e f o r h l s s a f e t y a t work. 3e

a l s o sued M r . Davis. The l e a r n e d t r l a l judge gave ,judgment f o r

t i e respondent a g a l n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t , and dismissed t h e

r e sponden t ' s c la im against iqr. Davls ?vho i s n o t p a r t y t o t h i s

appea l . The a p p e l l a n t before t h l s Court contended t h a t , on

t h e ev idence , t h e r e sponden t ' s clalln should have been d i smissed ,

a s no j'indlng of negligence should have been msde a g a i n s t - t h e

a p p e l l a n t . The a p p e l l a n t contended a l s o t h a t i f on t h e evidence

t h e f l n d l n g t h a t t h e r e sponden t ' s l n j u r l e s r e s u l t e d from

negl lgence on t h e p a r t of t h e appe l lz r i t be a f f i rmed , t h e r e

should have been a f l n d i n g t h a t t h e respondent was g u i l t y of

conty-lbutory r iegllgecce. The ques t lon 01 ?amages i s n o t I n i s s u e .

Wc conslder t h a t t h e Court should deal v l t h

t h i s appeal i n accordance ~trith t h e follovilng principles.

F i r s t , it accepks f a c t s v:hlch w r e and a r e undisputed. S ~ c c p d l y , a t

l e a s t i n general , it accepts a f lnding of prlmary f e c t by a

t r l a l judge, where the re was ev~dence or, vihlch he could :fialit= $.~c!l

a f lnd ing , notwlthstandlng t h a t the evldence was dlsputed

and t h e t r l d judge's declslon turned on -the c r e d l b l l l t ~

of witnesses. I n such a case , t h e t r i a l judge has t h e

very valuable advantage of hearing and seeing t h e

witnesses. Tlllrdly, f lndings by the t r i a l judge ~151ch

a r e i n t h e nature of inferences from prlmary f a c t s f o v ~ d

by him, a r e open t o scrur.iny by t h l s Court on the

p r l i ? c i p l ~ s enuncleted by t h e majorl ty ol' the High.

Court I n Warren v. Coc:nbes, (1979) 57 LO3.J.2. 297. Thi::

IS - tha t an appe l la te Court i n decic'ring r.rhat i s -the

proper inference t o be dravm from f a c t s v:k!ich a r e

undisputed o r vhlch, hs.vlng beer! disputed, a r e CS iahlisheti

by t h e f indings of t h e t r i a l juege v 1 1 1 1 glve respect

and. wei&ht t o t h e coricluslon of the t r l a l judge 'nut,

... once hav~ng . reached- i t s own.. c c ~ c l u s l o ~ ~ , w i l l no t shrink

from glvlng e f f e c t t o it.

A t the t r l a l the re vere ser lous d l f f l c u l t l e s cl' direcxly

con f l l c t l ng evldence rfruch 1;he learned t r1 .d judge discussed

and ca re fu l l y exzmlneci i n h i s jildgment. A major ccn te i? t~on

of the appel lant a t the trial isras tnat the lncldenz of brhlcl? tke

respondent g2ve evldence Pever occurreci. The responden-cts

account xias zhat '.!hlle he \!as a t work dr lv lng the appel lanz ' s

t ruck he was ordered by r ad l c t o c o l l e c t , from a s p e c ~ r l c s l t c

i n Fysh~~,lc!:, a l a rge " s ~ t e shed" 7:rhich was a cor~>ugatcd l r c n

s t r u c t u r e used by t h e e p p e l l a n t .[or s t o r i n g bullcil;:f,- mti Lc-~,inl::

under l ock and ksy dur lng t h e perxod when a bui.lrllng has riot

p rogressed t o the s t a t e a t :rhich ~t car1 be locked up. A c c o r d l n ~

t o t h e respondent he grocceded t o t h e s i -ce , it

was t h e r e loaded on t h e t r u c k by about e i g h t men and he was

-then ordered. TO t a k e i t -to a s p e c i f i c s l t e i n Weet, lnfl~re

t o unload. Theyeaf te r t h e respondeflt d r o v ~ v;lth Davls

t o Weetzngera. He s a i d -chat w i th D2vis he !<as removi~lg the

s h ~ d from t h ? truclr a t :-he nominated s l t e i n :'feetangera when

t h e a c c i d e n t happened.

The respondenz ga-ie evldsnce t h a t th: building on

t h e s i ~ r vilere he and D:lvls un loace t The shcd, hed -?ached

t h e s t a g e of founda t ions only . Thls ~ o u l d bc c o n s i s t e n t v i t h

t h e need f o r a site shed t h e r e .

The evidence adduced f o r t n e appellenl: tended t o sho:r

t h a t t h e l n c i d e n t could n o t have occurrpd a t z h ~ r ime , a t t h e

p l a c e , and l n t h e monner described by t h e responaen-c. Dams

denled t h a t he had Evsr been i n a t r u c k n t h t h e respsnclent

on an occas lon such a s hat desc r ibed by hln.

There was evldence t end lng t o show t h a t a t

t h e r e l e v a n t t ime t h e r e were on ly tiro building s l t e s i n l:!eetar~g.-rd

on which t h e cocpany was working, and z h c t b u i 1 d i r . g ~ on botil

t hose s i t e s had progressed t o a much more advanced s t a g e th3n

t h a t dcsc r ibed by t h e respondenr. The r ,espcndent, some l l z t l e

t ime a f t e r the acciden'i, made a c la im on a p r l n t e d

w o r h u e n ~ s compensation 2nd. t h e hour of

form f o r

the day and p l z c e of t h e a c c i d e n t con'talned there111 rrere

a l t o s ~ Lher d i f I e r e n t from t h o s e g iven i n h l s evlde?lcc.

On each of t h e s e m a t t e r s , however, t h e r e was evidence

v:hich somewhat reduced t h e weight of t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s evldcnce.

The reliability of Devis ' memory v a s show? tr: be ques~ lonc lb l f ? ,

a n d t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l judge iound t h a t he appeared t o be con fa l s~d

a t t imes . The evidence t h a t t h e r e were no b u l l d i n g sixes a t h e r

t h a n t h e two v:hlch d i d n o t answer t h e d e s c r i p t i o n g iven by t h e rcspor,-

d e n t vras shov,n t o r e s t on t h e r e c o l l e c t i o n of t h e employees of the

a p p e l l a n t o l e v e n t s o f s i x y e a r s e a r l j e l - snd n o t d i r ~ c t l y on ally ckc-

wr.ents produced i n evidence. The p r ~ . n t e d form on ~ r h i c h t h c c l ?.I% , ~ n s

made .:!as shovri t o have bcen s igned by t h e respondcmt a t a Time i;i!en

some of t h e de-tn.'.ls hed n o t been i i l l e d . I n . T ~ i s for:: was conplc.tcki

by zno the r employee of t h e appell:<.~l-l; .̂ L-om inf'ormatla>n

given from sourcEs o t h e r Than t h e respondent . It was s h o i : ~ ~ ,

however, t h a t i t was Tile reswondcnt vho f l l l e d i n Davis t nane

as a w l t n e s s of -the s c c i d e n t - a remerkeblc t h l n g t o do ;f

Davis was n o t 11-1 f a c t p r e s e n t . y e t t h e r e sponden t ' s c l a m f o r

::rorkrnenls compensation .;;as met. Some o t h e r employees of t h ~

appellsn-c 1,ih0 could have denied t h e t r u t h of t h e r s s p o n d ~ n t ~ r

eviaefice t h a t t h e shed was loaaed on t o t h e t r c c k i n zhe f l l - s t

p l a c e ,	Tiere	n o t c a l l e d ,	2nd	no	e q ~ l a n a t ~ . o n	u a s	g iven	o f	t h e i r
absence.

The evidence i n c o n f l i c z '<rlth zhe r e sponden t ' s evidencc

vras malnly t h a t of Davis. Beyond referring to t h e confusior!

In t h e evid5nce of Davis t h e l e z r n e d ,]udg? d i d c o t s p e c i f y

any particular a s p e c t of h l s evidence v:h;.hlch causcd him ul t lmcl te ly

t c r e g a r d lt a s u n a c c e ~ t a b l e . ble have PO difficulty i n concluclng

t h a t t h c l e a r n e d judge was r i g h t i n s o regarding it.

There were s p e c i f l c i t ems of -chc evidcnca of Davls

which were l n e v i t a h l y open t o c r l t i c l s r n . E a r l y

in h l s evldence Davis s a i d t h a t i n t h e course 01

load ing and unloading s i t e sheds over a p s r l c d i n -<he cornpsnj.

of t h e respondent he h&d never evcn touched t112 ropes 1:diich h e l d

a shed on t o a t r u c k . In cross-exemmation he 3-c f i r s t rcpca ted

t h l s b u t l a t e r s a l d "1 never ua-iied them. Fcrhaps maybe cr.e

s i d e I used t o un+lel1. L a t e r he agreed tha-c 3rom rime t o time

he 7;~ould c l e a r t h e ropes alJ;ay. He s a d t h a t lie had nlcarit t k a ?

he !lad never t i e d a shed on 7 ~ 1 t h the~n . F a l l i n g t o pro1:er'Ly

r e l e a s e one of t h e ropes w n s one of t h e lxems c f a e g l i ~ c n c z

a l l e g e d i n -che ca se a g a i n s t Davls.

On t h e q u e s n o n o f shed s l z e s , Dams appeered a t i i r s t

t o be asserting an a l n o c t conp le t e inc:: OS knowledge 01 t h c

l a r g e s h e c l s , ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i c h he s a i d was a I1fuilny thlngl! . But g r z d u a l l j ~

o u i t e a good memory of t h e l a r g e sheds rc turn-d t o hi-n. 'Ii:e

. - . - . - .

. . -. --., - .- , --- ,. - - -

.	.
even t i n w l ~ i c ! ~ t h e respondent s a i d ha i:as 1n;ured conccrnsd
one of t h e l a r g e sheds .

IE t h e course o f t i l l s e v i d ~ n c e Davis s a i d t h e t he bx~d n o t

used any document t o r e f r e s h h i s recollection be fo re g i v i n g

evidence and t h a t he d l d n o t have and had never been given a copy of any statemen-c o r any th lng of t h c s o r t . La tpr hc

s a i d t h a t he had made and s lgned s l~c l l a s t a t e m e n ~ , i n f a c t

t h a t he had made tr.:o sta-cements, one i n 'i375 snd one a couple

of dzys c a r l i p r and had used one o l them f o r t h e pury,oFe of

refreshing h i s r e c o l l s c t i o n so a s t o p repa rc himself t o

g i v e evidence and t h a t t h e s ta tement was i n 111s possesc lon

a t h i s hone. Genera l ly , i t may a l s o be s a i d thz t on ?. read;~?j;

of t h e evidence of Davis it evokes a f e e l i n g of uneasc.

The l e a r n e d t r l a l judge, i ~ h i i e recognizing, and liei7y

c a r e f u l l y d e a l i n g wi-ch, t h e difficulties causcd by 51ic

conflict of evidence, found a s a f a c t t h a t t h e a c c i d c n t prohakly

occur red i n t h e manner and a t t h e t ime end p l a c e descri.bcd

by t h e respondent .	There	was	aup le ev1der .c~ t o suppor t t h l s
f i n d l n g .

Tliis Court h a s c a r e f u l l y considered a11 t h e evldence

i n c o n P l i c t *:;it11	t h a t of	t h e	r e s p o n d e n ~	awl	t h e	c r i t i c ~ s r n s	of
L

he respondent 'E evleence . Thi s evidence bras pel-suaslvely

marsha l led by s e n i o r counse l f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t , b u t i n t o t a l

e f f e c t it f e l l f a r s h o r t of persuading t h l s Court TO come t o

a di f fercn-c concll ls loo. The evidence i n c o n f l z c t r.?lt!l t 3 e

- - r e spondrn tLs evidence -and t h e c r i t l c l s m s ~f t n a t evidence 2rc

d ~ s c u s s c d i n d e t a l l be lov - a t tlli:; s t a g e it 1s s u f l c l e r l ~

t o s a y tha-t havlng r ega rd t o t h e g r c a t advznthge en joy ld

by t h e l e s r n e d judge, of s ee lng and hearing the witnesses, t h i s

Court h a s no d i s p c s l t i o n t o d l f f e r from h ~ f l n d l n g s of f & c t ,

t u r n i n g a s it d l d on t h e c r e c i i b i l l t y of t h e mT;?lesses and a

c a r e f u l examinetlon of t h e relelrani: e v i d e ~ ~ c c , bozh i n fevour

of t h e r e s p o n d e n t f s s t o r y and a q e l n s t i T ; .

The second. major argument f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t ..$ins tn:<t,

assuming -the t r u t h of t h e subs tencc of t h e r e s u o n d ? n t l s . evlclcr:~?.

t h e i ~ 2 , f e r e n c e t h a t t h e appel.lant was n e g l i g e n t should n o t 11ave

be?n drtivrn.	Here, of course , e s polnt,ed o u t by izhe Hlgh Court
111 Warren v.	Coombes ( s u p r a ) , t h i s Court has much f recdon t o

come t o i t s olnl conclusion.

It appears t h a t before t h e a c c i d e n t t h e r e were two klndc,

of " s i t e shed" used by t h e a p p e l l a n t . One was t h e k ind v h i c h v a s

l nvo lved i n t h e a c c l d e n t . This i s c a l l e d t h e l a r g e shed , i t s

dlmenslocs v e r e 19' X 8' x 6 ' . The r e s p o n d i ~ t gevc evidence o l the

i n s t r u c t i o n he had r ecn lved before t h e a c c l d e n t f o r moving -[his klr.3

01 shed. This v r e s t h a t -c0 moire t h e shed. it haci t o be CLS=.-ct lcd by XII-

b o l t l n g t h e roof from t h e v a l l s and Plc xral ls from t h e fl-oor. %c?!

of t h e l a r g e r h-a1.l~ weighed ebout 100 l b s , znd t h e o t h e r p a r t s

of t h e shed were correspondingly h ~ a v y . This i ~ s t r u c t i o n ,

a c c o r d i ~ g t o t h e responden-c, !:as g iven by ano the r enploycc. of

t h e a p p e l l a n t c a l l e d S e t t s . He was no-t c a l l e d by tfle aypellaniz

a-c the t r i a l , and FO exp lana t ion ir?.s given f o r h i s absence. The

r e s p o n d e n t s a ~ d t h a t he had Rever before t h e a c c l d e n t moved a

shed o f Ikiils k ind i n 1-CS assembled. s t a t e , and t h i s evidence

was n o t chal lenged.

The o t h e r k lnd of shed measured about 6 ' X 6 ' x L ' . Thls

s m a l l e r shed weighed ebout one t h l r d a s much es t h e l a r g e r ,

and. t h e respondent gave evldence a l s o of t h e ins-cructiofl he had 3

r e c e i v e d i n t h e manner of unloading it. In e f f e c t , t h i s rjas

t h a t t h e shed i n i t s essembled s t a t e wzs t o be pushed toprards t h e back of t h e t r a y of t h e t r u c k 021 which it !!as r e s k i n g , and

then t ipped over the edge i n a manner which involved a man

standing on the ground and e x e r c i s i ~ ~ g some control over i t s

l ; t h i s necessa r i ly involved nlomentarily taking some weight.

I n The respondent 's words, describing tne occhsion when he

performed t h i s operat ion under i n s l ruc t i ons :

". . .so it t i l t e d and I ,just held the parz of zhe

top of i - c , t he roof p a r t a s it was t i i t l n g . "

He sa id t h a t a M r . Stocks, described 2s the umein~enance manm

f o r the appel lant , and the respondent 's sup?r.ior a s cn employee,

a c tua l l y gave him the instruction i n the hanciling of the small

shed, end although it was not s a id t l ~ e t Pir. Stocks e > ~ l ~ . c i t l y

i n s t ruc t ed the respond~nz t o con t ro l the shed a s it t i l z e d ,

i n the manner described, nevertineless he 7:ratched the rebpondrnt

doing t h i s and did not cor rec t him. :vir. Stocks as c o t ca l l ed

a s a v i t n e s s t o deny the respondenzls account, and no raason

was	given f o r t b i s absence.
- ,-.

The. i-.es~~nd6li'i's~'evidenc-~ -was t h a t o f zhe day of the

accident is orders t o plck up the shcd, ar?d de l ive r i t t o the

s i t e where the accident occurred, :rere given -CO him by redio by <

two d i f f e r e n t persons, botn s u p r i o r t o him, i n the employ of

the appel lant . Both these persons: i4r. Conroy and i4r . Roden ~ . h + l z t L e r

being a d i r e c t o r of ~ 1 appel lant , 1 ~ gave evidencc f o r tile appcil?r.t,

and each s a i d %hat he could noT deny t h a t such an order was givcz~

t o the respondefit i n the manner described, though M r . Roden sald

t h a t it was not W r . Conroyls job a t tha-c timc t o give such

.

or'ders . Mr, Gonroy d id not agrec ?;I.:II . : ; P -.nleil ~n ... :L.:

question. The respondent 's accourt of the matter xas t h a t thc

job was clcscribed a s u r g e n t , indeed t h e t ,::hen he d e n u r ~ c d abou-c

doing it t h a t day because of o t h e r work he had t o c a r r y o u t

M r . Roden intervened over t h e r a d i o s ay lng "You're bloody

w e l l golr?g t o do it today1' . Conroy po in t ed o u t t h a t thr- shed

had t o be moved from Fysll~vick t o make room f o r a conc re t e pour ,

and it had t o be d e l i v e r e d t o t i e We?iangera s i t e t h ? t day,

because t h e nex t day mate]-lals were t o be d e l i v e r e d t'nere.

The respondent s a i d t h a t i n obedience t o t n l s o rde r he xoolc h l s

t ruck t o t h e p l a c e in Fyshviick t.11ere t h e shed was, an3 d1.2t zhe

shed was t h e n i n i t s assembled s-cate 1 i I t e d on t h e t r u c k by

e i ~ l l t men a t t h e d i r e c t i o n of Stocks and t h e respondent s a i d

he a g a i n spoke t o Conroy by r e d i o and t o l d him t h a t i t was

a shed of t h t l a r g e s i z e and asked h i n ho~v it ,::es t o be

removed from tine t ruck , Tne respondent s a l d t h a t Conroy LE-

struc-ced 11lm sunply t o I f s l l de it o f f " and t h a t he a e l d

t o Conroy, l l i J e l l l give it a go1'. t h e n t h e respondent and Devis

a r r i v e d a t t h e s i t e , t h e r e a c r e no o t h e r rwol-kmen t h e r e .

The respondent s a l d the-c l f t h e y had dlsmen-cled t h e shed n s

it s t o o d on t h e t r u c k it vould have fa l ler! z p a r t . It appes r s

t h a t he and Davls removed t h e shed from -the t r u c k i n the manner

i n which t h e respondent had beefi t a u g h t t o remove t h ~ s m a l l e r ;

t ype of shed. Af-cer ~ ~ l o e u v r i n g t h e shed a shorx d l s t a n c c v h i l s t xhey

S-tood on t h e ground, t h e nex t riovemefit of thc shed 'was done

by s i t t i n g on tho t r a y of t h e t r u c k wi th the l l - backs t o t h e back-boar2

and pushing wi th t h e i r l e g s . Yhcn t h e y dismounted m d pu:;hcd t h e edges

of the shed ~,lhich p r o j e c t e d over t h e edges of t h e -tray, so as T; o

swive l i t al ternate1.y i n one d i r e c t i o r . and t h e o the r . The respondent' :

account t hen went on as i;o t h e f i na l . lnoinents be fo re he was i n j u r e d

as fol lows:-

"And were you able t o s?e Rcg fro^ where you hiere?---

Occasionally.

And v111ere was he?---:I" was on the opposite s ide of

the t ruck - the sarie end.

And did you then commence the push p u l l slewlng

ectFon?--- Yes sir.

And what happened next?--- We had a breether . P.nd

I sa id , wel l , it looks l i k e i t s d o s e Lo

tile polnt of balancp, j u s t go a l i t t l e b l t more.

Yes?--- And he took p ~ s l x l c n s a:?d we s t a r t cd . I fell: Reg so rc

of p u l l a s I was pu l l ing , he was pushing.

Yes?--- And I vent bacl:, pushed zgaifi and. w h e ~ I xrcn-L: t o p u l l

back it was a b i t heavier, the next minu-cc 1

copped the weight, sir.

It .,!as a t t h l s point tha-c zhe responaent f e l t the sharp p a n

I n h i s back,	the f i r s t symptom	of	the i n ju ry 01 ?fi?lcil hc
complains.

In i t s criticism of t i e evidence of xhe responden-c, the appel lant r e l i e d particularly cpon '<he respondmt I s ans7:ier

t o in te r roga tory e igh t , the e r r o n e o x p a r t i c u l a r s of some of

the re levant events appearing i n h i s wr i t t en claim f o r

MorkrLenrs compensation urhich i s discussed above, 2nd h l s

descr ip t ion of the manner i n which he sa ld he suffered h l s

l n j u r ~ e s . It was s a ld t h a t the r5spordcnzrs ansy:ier t o

interroga-cory e igh t was c r l z l c a l . It operated, so it as sa ld ,

t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t -che respo~lderlt had been in s t ruc t ed by ?Ir.

Stocks i n Xarch 1972 t h a t "vrhenever I vas requlrea t o unload

a f u l l y assembled shed from a t ruck t h a t I was t o s l l d e tllc shed

CO the back of the t ruck u n t i l 1 t t l g s off the end of t h e 'ir~ucli

and l n t s t h ? ground and then drlve the zruck slmlly away".

It was s a l d t h a t t o unload Yne shed by t h i s manner dld not

involve taking 7::elght. It ltriras urged t h a t an

i n s t r u c t l o ~ t o urnload t'ne sbed i n thc manner described i n

this answer involved no danger and satisfied

tne duty of the appellant to give adequate instruct~.onc to

the respondect. It was urged for the appellant also c.hat: to

introduce a weight taking element into rhe operation ?!as	to
fail i;o take reasonable care for himself.

But there is a risk of error in talilng the terms of an

answer to an interrogatory expressed fn co~deilsed terms as 2

complete and satisfactory statement blndl~lg a party ic matter,

of 'detail. The respondect to a set of lnterrogatorles 2nd

those advlslng hln~ must recognise the heavy responslb~llt:r

thereln lnvolvcd and the risk to the respondent's case if by

reason or̂ a casual approach the an:<wer does not fully represent

the sltuati.on. But unfortunately the scrutlny necessary to

ensure that the answer is correct and conveys everything that

at trlal may be expected of it is snmetlmes not glven. In this

case the answer ~ 3 s prepared in Canberra, and sent to the

respondent at Cessnock. The respondent was nineteen years old

and unacquainted with documents and lt is a real possibility L11,lt

he would not have understood the preclse slgnlficance of i:c~zt

was i?i the documellt. ExamlnatLon of the evi.dence satlsfles U: ihlt

the 2nsv:er does not Ihlly represent the situation to 3,ihlch li: rift.rs,

-. . - . .

. . - --. .. , , - " .

As stated above,l.lr. Stocks was not called to give evident;. entr ;?IS

absence was unexplained. The only oral evidence as to the inslrr-uct-

lons in fact glven by Srccks is that of the respondent. From

that evidence it is clear that the instructions glven to hlm

concerned. only the inethod of l o ~ d i ~ ! ~ and wllosdlng the smzller

sheds. They were, in the vords of the anshrer to the ini;erroc2tory

set oat above, ';fully assembled'' sheds. Tn tie context of the

evldence it is clear that the expression "a fully assembled

shed" is used to designate one of the snall sheds. It 9s

apparent that at the stage 7:ihen the instructions were given

about t h e f i l l l y assembled sheds n o t one l a r g e shed had <.vtr

been loaded o r unloaded i n a f u l l y asselnbl?d s t a t e . T i l ~ y

had always been d iv ided i n t o s e c t i o n s f o r t r a n s p o r t . The

instructions r e f e y r e d -to i n t h e a n s i x r t o i i ? t e r roga to ry elg:~-:

viere g iven i n a demonstra t ion by ?4r. Stocks t o t h e r e s p o ~ d - n r

of t h e uiethod of l oad ing end unloading a m a l l shed which (11 d

n o t have t o be dismantled f o r t r a n s p o r t . The mariler of un-

loading inc luded m a ~ u e l l y o r b o d i l y manoeuvrFn~,.the shed -co t h e

back o f t h e t r u c k , and -then, a s instructed by I?r. S tocks ,

!!Just p u l l 17; o u t a b i t f u r t h e r and l e t it come dormft. Then

a s t h e respondent s a i d , "It t l l t e d and I just h c l d t h e p a r t of

t h e t o p of i t , t h e roof p a r t , a s it was t i l t i n g " .

Involved i n thls \ias t h e moving of t h e shed to t h e r c a r

of t h e t r u c k and a l l o v i n g it t o t-llt end t h e n teklne; some

weight 111 s t ezdy ing i - t a s it r.xnT; tIo~,rn t o t h e ground. The

demonstrat ior . and i n s r r u c t i o n had c o t h l n g t o do ~ / i ? ~ h 'ihc. mctbod

of l o a b n g an2 un loadicg l a r g e sheds . T l n s was m a n i f e s t l y sc.,

because it was 7;he prz .c t ice t o dis lnant lc such sheds. A s

s t a t e d above t n e rcspondcnt had g lven evidence of being in -

s t r u c t e d by one B e t t s a s t o -che memer of l oad ing znd ~ u l l o a e l n ~

t h e l a r g e sheds f o r rans sport at ion. He s a i d t h a t t h e

i n s t r u c t i o n was t h a t such sheds be dismant led. B e t t s was a t

t h e t ime an cmyloyee of t h e a p p c l l s n t . He was n o t c a l l e d a s

a w l t n e s s and no explzna-cion f o r t h a t omlsslon :ras given.

Thls evidence of t h e respurdent a s t o these i n s ' i r uc~ ionz

1s Inherent ly probable and the appellent could so e a s i l y

have.disproved it by evldeace of Be t t s o r Stocks and

other members of ~ t s s t a f f . Certainly the answer t o inter]-0,-atory

e igh t omlts any reference t o steadying t h e shed a s it t l l t e d

but f o r reasons indicated a5ove t he re 1s no reason t o doubt the

i r ,s t ruct ions -the respondent had rece i~rea about ur~loading t h e l a rge

sheds anL t h e small sheds including the demonstrat~on	i r l t h e
presence of M r . Stocks.

The consequence of t h l s i s t h a t i t i s t o be inzerred

t h a t exc2pt f o r Conroyls l n s t ruc t l on on the day of zn?

accident, t o s l i d e t h e l a rge shed of f -che t r~~c !c , no instructlol:

xas given t o t h e respondent a s t o how to unload one of the

l a rge sheds i n one piece. The reason f o r t h l s ::as tha'i when

M r . S tock 's demonstra-clon and instruction were glven the idea

of t ransporzing a l a rge shed i n one plece vas unkno?m.

The consequence of t h l s was tha-c when -che dsy d d cone t o

unload -ch? l a rge shed i n oae piece a l l the respsndent cou'd do

was t o remember zhat he ha6 been t o l d t o s l i d e 1-c o f f , mzke

use of h l s experience and lnscruct ions about unloading the

small sheds, and adapt accordingly.

.

The inference t o be drawn 1s t h a t In d o ~ n g t h i s t h e responLcnt

and Davis pushed t h e shed some way Towards t h e r e a r of t h e t ruck

by pu t t ing t h e l r backs t o the t ruck cabin and pushing t h e shed

with t h e l r l egs . Thereafter they msnoeuvred -che shed f u r ~ h e r

t o t h e r e a r by pushlng and pu l l lng and swivelling. The evldencc

a s t o t h e f i n a l moments	vhere he	c iesc r~bes	111s "copping1' rhe
weight i s s e t oul; above.

12, point to the following flndlngs of the learned trlal ~udge. The first is "In all the circumstances I thlnk it is probable that the plalntlff's /?esponcient1s7 - - verslon of what occurred did in fact occur." The second. ln rel-atlon to the respondent's evldence, is "Despite thls T chought that overall

he was endeavouring to tell me the truth." The thlrd f~ndlng

1s llIrrespectlve of whether Mr. Cofiroy gave that speclflc

dlrectlon or not I thlnk that Dlonad was negligent in loadlng

a shed of thls slzeon lo a truck and expectln~ the plai~ltilf

/?he - respondent7 - and Mr. Davls to unload at Weetangera wlthout any assistance or wlthout any equlpment." Whilst the question

of negligence is an inference v:e conslder that ~t 1s clear

that the learned trial judge, havlng seen the witnesses and having

accepted the respondent's evldence thal; the large shed was

loaded onto the truclc and that tnk respondent end Mr. Davis were

requlred to unload it 3,rlthout ar?y other assl.stance and without any

equlpment, drew the correct inference. L150 :n our oplnion,

-the proper inference to b? dravm from the f3cts is rhat

the respondent's in~ury was caused by thz appellant's

breach of its duty to prowde a reasonably safe method of

unloading the shad.

It is sald that the respondem should have avoided taklng

any of the welght when the shed tilted. But the situation would

appear to be that the control of the shed to get it to

.'

t h e ba lance p o l n t and t h e n t o t i l t , i n e v i t z b l y involveci

e a s l n g o r at temp-tlng t o ea se the weight of t h e shed s o t h a t i r .

would sl.jivel and u l t i m a t e l y tilt and t h a t ia:l.:cn t h e shed dxd tll .1

~t d i d s o suddenly and t h e rosponde:lt was caught h o l d l n ~ i t end

d i d n o t l e t go qu ick ly enouzh. That such a thir ,g 7:;ould happen

t o a boy of n i n e t e e n s t r u g g l i n g t o manoeuvre such a heavy,

a\vh:ard shed and no doubt feeling t h e necc-ss l ty t o s t ~ a d y tine

f a l l o f t h e shed a l i t t l e a t l e a s t , s o t h a t it would n o t be

damaged, i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g , r a t h e r t h e r e v e r s e . And i f iras i n

r equ i r l i l g him t o do t h i s vn thout p rov id ing h l n w l t h e p p r o p r l a t e

equipment, manpower, supervision o r adequate i n s t r u c t i o n s thai-

v!zs t h e a g p e l l a n t ' s neg l igcnce . It sllould be n s t e d t h a t

d e s p l t e t h e d i s p a r ~ x y i n ages t h e respondent was regerded by

e l l concerned a s t h e emnloye2 I n c l ~ z r g e of t h e e n t e r p r i s e . Dzvis wes

aged 52 years . To send t h e respondent t o unload such a h e x y ancl :ii!lc-

~vard shed w i t h t h e a s s i s t m c e on ly of D m i s znd wi thout a p p r o p r i ~ t e

s u p e r v i s i o n o r adequate i n ; t r u c t l o n was i n the words of Qlson C.J.

and K i t t o J. !Ithe s o r t of ~ h l n g you would think migllt veil arouse

some degree of apprehension i n any s p e c t z t o r o i t h e ope ra t ion ,

t o s a y no th ing o f an experienced ~ m p l o y e r . ~ ~ See Hamilton v.

. . . - ..-. .. . -0 -, . - . - ...

Nuroof (':?T.A.)P'iy. I . td . (1956) 96 C.L.Fi. 1 5 a t pps. 25-26.

The respondent and M r . Dams T:iel-e r z q u i r e d t o c m r y out

a p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous t a s k i n a way c o n t r a r y TO t h e

established p r a c t i c e of d i sman t l i ag l ~ r sheds ~ e b e l o r e

removal. The du ty of an e:nploysr was d i scussed by I'Iaron J.

(wl th 1:hom Berwick C . J . , and Gibbs and 4icP.111 JJ. zgreed) i n

Raimondo v.	The	S t a t e of	South A u s t r a l i a (1979) 23 P..L.K.	513
a t p.51'7:-

"The du ty of t h e respondent a s an cnployer w s s t o

t a k e re3sonable c a r e f o r thp s a f e t ~ r of i t s vorlrmen - ~ ~ ~ . . ~

o r , a s lt was expressed by Dlxon C . J . m d R iz to J.

i n Hanl l ton v. Nuraof ( W . A . ) Pt.y. LT;?. (1956) 36

C.L.K. 1% a t p . 25 , ' t o t a k e reasonnble c z r e t o

avold e x p o s l n i t h e employees T O uimeccssary r i s k s

of i n j u r y t . I n t h e p e r f o r ~ a n c e of t h i s du ty it \!as

t h e r e s p o n s l b i l l t y of t h e respondent t o ensure zhaz

a l l reasonable s t c p s were taken t o p rov lde 2 reasori3bly

s a f e system of w o r k ~ n g . In g e n e r z l 1x i s f o r an

employer t o dev l se and i n s t r u c t h l s s e r v a n t s t o

f o l l o i ~ a system of work i \ ~ l ~ l c h '*!1ll obv la t e uilexpecteci

and unusual dangers l n t h e under tak ing i n whlch t h e y

a r e engaged. Th i s r e s p 3 n s i b i l ~ t y L s n o t conf ined t o unsxpected and unusua l dangess; 111 approp-lz-le

c a s e s it extends t o dzngers v~h ich a r p obvious bo th

t o hlrn and t o h i s vorkmen, a s t h e d e c i s i o n i n

Hamilton v. Muroof ( W . A . ) Psv. Ltd. l t s e l f

demonstra tes - see esp . pp. 3 x 3 7 - 3 1 1 .

With r e s p e c t t o t h e a p p e l l z n t t s con ten t ion t h a t t h e

r e s p o n d m t is:.ras guil-cy of con-lr lbutory negligence t h e Court i s

s a t i s f l e d , f o r reasons whlch & r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m l l a r t o xhe

reasons f o r t h e conclusion s t a t e d ebove,~h?-c on the evidence na

l n f s r e n c e of c o n t r i b u t o r y neg l igence should be dra:in a g z l n s t

t h e respondect . F m d l n g t h a t the. respondent had n o t 5een sho1:r.

t h e p rope r ivay t o move t h ? l a r g e r k lnd of shed, and t h a t hc

adopted t h e method appropriate f o r t h e sma l l e r k lnd , rh? C o ~ r t

t h l n k s t h a t t h i s was n o t unreasonable I n t h e circumscancc-s

of urgency and t h e neans a v a i l a b l e t o t h c responden-c. It

was contended t h a t t h e shed -.vas s o obviously h e a v l e r t h a n 2

shed of t h e s n a l l e r k i n d , z h a t t h e s e n s i b l e procedure f o r t h e

respondent and W. Davis would have been t o keep pushing and s w i v e l l i n g t h e shed u n t i l it f e l l o f f t h e t r a y o f t h e t r u c k ,

wl thout a t t empt ing t o c o n t r o l it a s it f e l l . Such a n argunenx

lgnorcs t h e na-cural tendency of an erfiployee t o endeavour t o

p r e s e r v e p r o p e r t y from damage, especial1.y t h e p r o p e r t y of his

employer. The a p p e l l m t sought t o c s t ab l l sh t h a t the

evidence sho7::cd t h a t the respondent had w i l fu l l y and unre?sc>r: bl y

sought t o support zhe weight of the l z rge shed. We do not

considcr xhat t h i s i s a cor rec t interpretation of the

respondent 's evidence. What the respondent s a d i s r h a t he

"copped the weight" i n the sense xhat clulxe suddenly he

"got a l l the ~::elght'I. :le d ld not say t h a t he d e l i b e r a t ~ l y

sought t o bear the welght of the shed himself.

The respondent was l e f t by the appel lant r e s l l y t o

use h i s own d i s c r e t i on i n unloading the shed. Necessarily i r

had t o be pushed, pul led 2nd swivelled and ~ t s weight ~ a s c d

s l i g h t l y t o get it t o the poin-t of balance and beyond. It

was so b ig a ~ d avr!cward t h a t it vrould not h a v ~ been Pesy t o

judgc the precise point of balence a ~ d the p robsb l l l t y t ha t

it would tilt suddcnly a ~ d cal-ch thc respondent when he was

pu l l l ng o r pushing o r swlvel l lng o r easing so t h a t he ~voulc?

momentarily zake the weight wes very r e a l . The i a c t t h o t i n

t h e i r inexperience the r e s p o n d e ~ l and Davis were p u : , h ~ n ~ ,

pu l l i ng and swivellsng i n an unco-ordinated mmner added t o the

possibility of the sudden tllt. The possibility of the

respondent even sub-consciously thlnking lt des i rable t o

s teady the f a l l of the shed t o save it from damage, misjudging

what wes posslble o r sa fe t o do Jaras a na tu ra l inc ldent i n such

an exerc ise .

In r e l a t i o n t o tne contention t h a t t h l s Court should f lnd

t h a t the respondent was g u i l t y of contr ibutory negligence

ve th lnk t h a t i n the clrcurns tances of t h i s case passages 111

the j u d g ~ e n t of the Court of Appeal i n G a l l a ~ h c r =-.. v. 3on.1-~n - .--- 7

Long & Co.	Ltd.	P19477 2 A l l . ER 38 a t p.42 a re of ass is tance .
They read:-

11 Thero remalns t o be considersd the qu)estion

whether thc- p l a i n i i f f , by h l s o;vn negligence, caused o r

contr ibuted to the accident . So Tar a s can be gathcred

from the e v ~ d e n c e , the duty, so f a r a s th6 crane :/as

concerned, owed by the y l a ~ n - c i f f t o t h e defendants,

was t o use the bes t of h i s s k i l l and knovvledgo t o

e s t i n a t e the v~eight of each load and t o keep i c

within vhat he b ~ l i e v e d t o be the s a f e w e l g h ~ . . . .

A l l t h a t the evldence shov~s i s t h a t the plaintiff

thought zhey had a load of only LI tons: snd t h a t the

crane toppled over. No de l lbe ra te overlosding is

establlsl-ied by the e v i d e n c ~ , and the onus of cho~~lnc :

t h i s i s on the defendants. \+Yi~thcr izhc acclc ien~ l-tzs

due t o n mistake of judgment 2s to t h e m i g h t of zhe

l l f t , o r t o a mlstake a s TO the c ~ p a c i z y ofthe

crane a t t h i s red ius , ':as not c leared up. The hlghes t

it can be p u ~ a g a ~ n s t the p l a l n t l f f and Pearce i s t h d t ,

by ail lloncst mlstake, o r madvertence, tncy ?:!ere I?-on5

I n z h s r e s t l g a t e of the vexght of the l l f L. Thls, i n

our view, would not cons t l tu t? a breach of the duty

which they owed t o t h e i r employer. . . .

It i s not every mlstake o r inadvertence t h z t amomits

t o c o n t r l b u ~ o r y negligence. If a man exercising h ~ s

s lc l l l and !cno~:;ledg~ t o the bes t of h l s 2 b l l i t y ~zke:;

a mistake, car- t icular ly , a s i:? t h i s case , i n e s t i m ~ t l n g

.. .

' '!{hat u!ould-be a safz li.?t, i -c cloes no-z, i n our vlel::,

amount t o coiltrlbutory negligence. "

The appel lant placed some re l i ance uTon t'ne fac-c t h a t

the respondent had been unable t o s t a t e 7 . 1 i t i . l precision the

manner i n vrhich the accident occurred. However, i n a case of

t h i s kind v:e think t h a t the remarks of !hlliams

and Taylor .JJ. i n F:'amllton v. I'Juroof (w.A.) Pty. Ltd.

(supra) a t p.29 are I n polnt . Their Honours s t a t e : -

"To t h e m e d ~ c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r >::h0 ax~;er?ded him

follo1,;ing h i s edmisslon t o hosoi-cal he s a i d r l l5t he

had ' s l i p p e d ?11d it came olrcr h l s hands and

fore-arms and l e f t s i d e of h ~ s f a c e 1 . KO cloubl

t h e acc idenz happened s o suddenly a r ~ d i t s r e s d l t s

were s o serious and p a i n f u l t o t h e appellant hat

l t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n ~ t h a t he was, and s t l l l i s , unable

t o s a y p r e c i s e l y 'low it happened and it may no t b?

of g r e a t ~ n p o r t ~ n c e t h a t xher? h a s been some

divergence betl:reen t h e accounts g iven

by him from t ime t o t ime. It was n o t , we should

t h i n k , incumbent; upon h ~ m t o prove t!ie p r e c i s e i~snner

i n which t h e acciden-i occurred i f he c o r r e c t infel-tlnce

f r o n t h e proved f a c t s i s t h a t it r e s u l t e d from

negligence f o r trhlch t h e respondents~,7ould be l i a b l e .

We vould t h e r e f o r e coniirrn t h e f i n d r n g of t h e l e a r n e d

judge t h a t t h e respondent s u f f e r e d h i s i n j u r i e s by m e s o n of

t h e negligence of t h e a p p e l l a n t and t h a t t h e respondent was

n o t g u l l t y of c o n t r i b u t o r y neg l igence .

For t hose reesons t h e appea l rdust be dismissed

w i t h c o s t s .

I

I c e r t i f y that this and the&*

preceding pa,+es a r e a t r u e copy of t he

Reasr s forJuugmenthere lnof &fionou~d

m. J ~ s t i c u % h & h ~ n &L&