Hamilton v NuRoof (WA) Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning a claim for damages brought by Gavin Athol Hamilton against his employer, Nuroof (W.A.) Pty. Ltd. Mr. Hamilton sustained severe injuries when molten bitumen spilled on him while he was employed by the company to repair a roof on the sixth floor of a building. His action was based on the employer's alleged failure to provide a safe system of work, proper instructions, and adequate supervision, or alternatively, negligence in these regards. The trial judge had found for the defendant company, holding that the method of handling the bitumen did not present a particular danger and that the employer's duty of care did not necessitate adopting a different method.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the employer had breached its duty of care to provide a safe system of work and whether this breach caused the employee's injuries. Specifically, the court had to determine if the method used to transport molten bitumen to the roof, which involved manual lifting of buckets by the employee, exposed him to an unnecessary or unreasonable risk of injury. The court also considered whether the employer had failed to take reasonable care and foresight to avoid such risks, particularly given the dangerous nature of molten bitumen and the evident risk of spillage.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Dixon C.J., Fullagar and Kitto JJ., found the employer liable. They reasoned that the danger of molten bitumen spilling was both real and evident, and that care and foresight should not have disregarded this likelihood. The court determined that a safer method of performing the work was readily available and simple to implement, such as using a rope to hoist the buckets further, thereby avoiding the need for manual lifting at height. The majority criticised the trial judge's finding that no particular danger attached to the method, emphasizing the employer's non-delegable duty to ensure a safe system of work. Williams and Taylor JJ. dissented, agreeing with the trial judge that the method did not expose the employee to unreasonable risk and that the accident's precise cause remained uncertain, making it difficult to establish the employer's negligence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. It ordered that judgment be entered for the appellant, Mr. Hamilton, for damages to be assessed, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for that assessment.