Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2013] QSC 52
•11 March 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 52
[2013] QSC 52
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Peters v Wilkins Trust [2020] QDC 125
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Peters v Wilkins Trust
[2020] QDC 125
Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd
[2013] QCA 270
Peters v Wilkins Trust
[2020] QDC 125
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
1
Lusk v Sapwell
[2011] QCA 59
Hunter v New Fishing Australia Pty Ltd
[2009] QSC 229
Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd
[2011] QSC 256