Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd - [2013] QSC 52

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 52

PARTIES:

MITCHELL DWIGHT HEYWOOD
(plaintiff)
v
COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL PTY LTD
(ACN 124 997 771)
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 5102 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8-10 October 2012

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

Action dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASE – AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as an apprentice electrician – where plaintiff required to use a system involving metal framing to protect electrical cabling – where plaintiff cut a piece of framing as required by his employer – where the plaintiff left a piece of the scrap metal near a ladder used by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff knew that the scrap metal was sharp – where the plaintiff subsequently punctured his elbow on the scrap metal – where the plaintiff suffered injury as a result – whether the defendant breached its duty of care owed to the plaintiff at common law

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – GENERALLY- where the defendant implemented a system whereby scrap metal was used to cover electrical cabling – where expert reports adduced with respect to whether system implemented by the defendant met standards under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 – whether the duty of care owed by the defendant under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 was discharged by the defendant having implemented the system

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – RE-EMPLOYMENT OF WORKER – where the plaintiff is 28 years old – where the plaintiff suffered 100% division in ulnar nerve in left elbow – where the plaintiff is right handed – where injury expected to improve – where plaintiff still experiences occasions of numbness and reduced grip strength – where the plaintiff indicated a desire to work as an electrician in the mining industry – where injury will impact future employment to some degree – where no evidence adduced to suggest actual future economic loss – whether the plaintiff has demonstrated the loss resulting from any diminution in earning capacity

Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld)

Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2007] QCA 366, considered Lusk v Sapwell [2011] QCA 59, considered Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29, cited Rasic v Cruz [2001] NSWCA 66, considered Thompson v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234, considered Hunter v New Fishing Australia Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 229, cited Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 256, applied Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, applied

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Heywood v Commercial Electrical 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: [2013] QSC 52
Decision Date: 11 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Heywood, brought an action against Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd, his employer, for injuries sustained during his employment as an apprentice electrician. Heywood claimed that he was injured when he accidentally punctured his elbow on a piece of metal scrap that he had left near a ladder after cutting it from a metal framing system used to protect electrical cabling. Heywood alleged that his employer breached its duty of care owed to him under common law and the Electrical Safety Act 2002. The court was required to determine whether Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd owed Heywood a duty of care and whether this duty was breached, leading to Heywood's injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess the measure of damages for Heywood's personal injuries and any potential loss of earning capacity.

The court examined whether Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd owed Heywood a duty of care and whether this duty was breached. The court found that while Heywood was required to use the metal framing system as part of his employment, leaving the metal scrap near a ladder was not part of his work. The court held that the employer did not breach any duty of care owed to Heywood under the common law or the Electrical Safety Act 2002, as the employer had implemented a system that met the statutory standards. Furthermore, the court concluded that Heywood's decision to leave the sharp metal scrap near the ladder was a voluntary act that contributed to his injuries. Regarding the measure of damages, the court found that while Heywood suffered a significant injury, there was no evidence of actual future economic loss. The court dismissed Heywood's action in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Action dismissed

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.

CITATION:	Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 52
PARTIES:	MITCHELL DWIGHT HEYWOOD (plaintiff) v COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL PTY LTD (ACN 124 997 771) (defendant)
FILE NO:	BS 5102 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 March 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8-10 October 2012
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	Action dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASE – AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as an apprentice electrician – where plaintiff required to use a system involving metal framing to protect electrical cabling – where plaintiff cut a piece of framing as required by his employer – where the plaintiff left a piece of the scrap metal near a ladder used by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff knew that the scrap metal was sharp – where the plaintiff subsequently punctured his elbow on the scrap metal – where the plaintiff suffered injury as a result – whether the defendant breached its duty of care owed to the plaintiff at common law TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – GENERALLY- where the defendant implemented a system whereby scrap metal was used to cover electrical cabling – where expert reports adduced with respect to whether system implemented by the defendant met standards under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 – whether the duty of care owed by the defendant under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 was discharged by the defendant having implemented the system DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – RE-EMPLOYMENT OF WORKER – where the plaintiff is 28 years old – where the plaintiff suffered 100% division in ulnar nerve in left elbow – where the plaintiff is right handed – where injury expected to improve – where plaintiff still experiences occasions of numbness and reduced grip strength – where the plaintiff indicated a desire to work as an electrician in the mining industry – where injury will impact future employment to some degree – where no evidence adduced to suggest actual future economic loss – whether the plaintiff has demonstrated the loss resulting from any diminution in earning capacity Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2007] QCA 366, considered Lusk v Sapwell [2011] QCA 59, considered Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29, cited Rasic v Cruz [2001] NSWCA 66, considered Thompson v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234, considered Hunter v New Fishing Australia Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 229, cited Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 256, applied Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, applied