Heesom v ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 45 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Heesom v ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 653
Hearing dates: 21, 22, 23 October 2020
Date of orders: 2 November 2020
Decision date: 02 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $2,152,091.

(2)   Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

(3)   Grant leave to the parties to approach my Associate within 7 days to re-list the matter if any different costs order is sought.

Catchwords:

NEGLIGENCE — worker fell down a stairway on a ship — stairway obstructed by stored hoses — whether the risk of a crew member tripping on the hoses was foreseeable — whether a reasonable person would have barricaded the port midships stairway when hoses were blocking the stairway — whether a reasonable person would have directed crew not to use stairway when hoses blocked entrance — whether or not a reasonable person would have found an alternative hose storage location

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — comparison of degree of departure from the standard of care of the reasonable man and of the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing the damage — alternative walkway and stairway available — need for care in negotiating an obvious hazard

QUANTUM OF DAMAGES — future economic loss – whether there was a prospect of worker getting back to work

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B(1)(f)

District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 44(1)(d1)

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 151, 151E, 151F, 151G, 151H, 151I,

151 IA, 151G, 151L

Cases Cited:

Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver [2001] HCA 24; 75 ALJR 867

March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; 171 CLR 506

Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; 59 ALJR 492

Wilkinson v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 250

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; 146 CLR 40

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Terry Owen Heesom (Plaintiff)
ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
B McManamey (Plaintiff)
D Kelly (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Turner Freeman (Plaintiff)
Hicksons Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/88914

Judgment

Introduction

  1. On 18 September 2013 the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as the second engineer on board the “Whitnavigator”, a fuel tanker which operated in Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay. The plaintiff fell down a stairway and suffered significant injuries to his back, neck and right shoulder.

  2. By a Statement of Claim filed on 20 March 2020 the plaintiff seeks damages for injuries which he alleged were sustained as a result of the negligence of the defendant employer.

  3. The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) does not apply to this claim: s 3B(1)(f). There is no monetary limit on the damages which may be awarded by this court on a claim of this nature – s 44(1)(d1) District Court Act 1973 (NSW).

  4. The claim is governed by Part 5 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Heesom v ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWDC 653
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, the ship's manager, claiming damages for injuries sustained when he fell down a stairway on a ship due to it being obstructed by stored hoses. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, with Justice Bromberg presiding. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent in failing to barricade the stairway when hoses blocked it, failing to direct crew members not to use the stairway when it was blocked, and in not finding an alternative location for the hose storage. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff was partially responsible for his injuries due to his failure to exercise reasonable care in navigating the obvious hazard. The court was required to decide whether the risk of a crew member tripping on the hoses was foreseeable, whether a reasonable person would have barricaded the stairway when hoses were blocking it, whether a reasonable person would have directed crew not to use the stairway when hoses blocked the entrance, whether or not a reasonable person would have found an alternative hose storage location, and whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence should be considered in the assessment of damages.

The court found that the risk of a crew member tripping on the hoses was foreseeable and that a reasonable person would have barricaded the stairway when hoses were blocking it, directed crew members not to use the stairway when it was blocked, and found an alternative hose storage location. The court also found that the plaintiff was partially responsible for his injuries due to his failure to exercise reasonable care in navigating the obvious hazard. The court considered the degree of departure from the standard of care of the reasonable man and the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing the damage. The court found that the defendant was liable for 75% of the damages and the plaintiff was liable for 25% of the damages. The court awarded the plaintiff damages of $2,152,091, reduced by 25% to reflect the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs and granted leave to the parties to approach the Associate within 7 days to re-list the matter if any different costs order is sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $2,152,091.

(2) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

(3) Grant leave to the parties to approach my Associate within 7 days to re-list the matter if any different costs order is sought.

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.