Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Heywood, the appellant, and Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd, the respondent. The appellant, employed as a trainee electrician by the respondent, sustained injuries while working when he cut himself on a sharp edge of a U-shaped framing piece that he had positioned atop a high toolbox near a ladder he was using. The appellant argued that the respondent breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work, including instructions on the handling of sharp steel, placement of offcut pieces, and the safe method of performing tasks. The primary judge had found that the respondent did not breach its duty, given the appellant’s awareness of the sharp edge and his decision to place the offcut in a hazardous location. The appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the respondent failed to prescribe and implement a safe system of work and that this failure caused his injuries. Additionally, the appellant contested the assessment of damages for future loss of earning capacity and general damages by the primary judge.

The court examined whether the primary judge erred in not finding that the respondent breached its duty of care by not providing a safe system of work and whether this breach was causative of the appellant’s injuries. The court considered the evidence that the appellant was aware of the sharp edge and had placed the offcut in a hazardous location, which the primary judge deemed sufficient to conclude that no breach occurred. The court also assessed the appellant’s arguments regarding the adequacy of the damages awarded for future loss of earning capacity and general damages. The primary judge had assessed the future loss of earning capacity at $150,000 and general damages at $50,000, while the appellant argued these should have been $400,000 and $75,000, respectively. The court evaluated the evidence and arguments from both parties regarding the appellant’s earning capacity and opportunities for re-employment.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in concluding that the respondent did not breach its duty of care, given the appellant’s knowledge of the sharp edge and his placement of the offcut. Consequently, the court upheld the primary judge’s decision on the issue of breach of duty. Regarding damages, the court determined that the assessment of future loss of earning capacity and general damages by the primary judge was not manifestly inadequate. The court considered the evidence that the appellant had been in constant employment since his injury and found that the primary judge’s award was appropriate. Additionally, the court found no error in the calculation of future loss of superannuation by the primary judge. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the parties to file and serve submissions on costs and the content of an order reflecting these reasons within seven days of the date of the decision.