Hill v Richards

Case [2011] NSWCA 291

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hill & Anor v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291
Hearing dates:25 August 2011
Decision date: 27 September 2011
Before: Giles JA at [1], Campbell JA at [64],
Handley AJA at [65]
Decision:

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $462,508 and in lieu thereof verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $346,881.

3. No order as to costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE - member of shearing team - back injury in course of shearing operations - whether injury because slipped on stairs in shearing shed - trial judge's affirmative finding upheld - whether owner of shearing shed breached duty of care in failing to have non-slip strip on stairs -owners of shed had followed WorkCover guide - stairs complied with relevant standards - but evidence of particular risk factors - failure to address through principles in Civil Liability Act - but exercise of reasonable care required non-slip strip. APPORTIONMENT - employer also breached duty of care - whether trial judge's apportionment for purposes of s 151Z Workers Compensation Act appealably erroneous - apportionment varied.
Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1987
Cases Cited: Davis v Wagga Wagga City Council [2004] NSWCA 34; (2004) 4 DDCR 358;
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118;
Gett v Tabet [2009] NSWCA 76; (2009) 254 ALR 504;
Kappadoukas v Fransepp Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 366;
Mastronardi v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 270;
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529;
Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (1985) 1 WLR 948;
Sheridan v Borgmeyer [2006] NSWCA 201;
Wilson v Nilepac Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 63;
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40;
Yarrabee Coal Co Pty Ltd v Lujans [2009] NSWCA 85; (2009) 53 MVR 187.
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Tony Hill - First Appellant
Diana Hill - Second Appellant
Mark Justin Richards - First Respondent
Representation: I Roberts SC & G Parker - Appellants
K Rewell SC & R Harrington - Respondent
Pogson Cronin, Lavington - Appellants
Stacks, Taree - Respondent
File Number(s):CA 2009/296837
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
Richards v Hill & Hill [2010] NSWSC 949
Date of Decision:
2010-09-24 00:00:00
Before:
Studdert AJ
File Number(s):
SC 20648/09

Judgment

  1. GILES JA : The appellants owned a property near Cootamundra on which they conducted mixed farming, including running eight thousand Merino sheep. In 2003 they constructed a shearing shed, with six stands, which…

Continue reading Hill v Richards

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hill v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291
Case
[2011] NSWCA 291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hill v Richards*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning a back injury sustained by a member of a shearing team. The plaintiff, Mr. Hill, alleged his injury occurred when he slipped on the stairs in the shearing shed owned by the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Richards. The trial judge had found in favour of the plaintiff, determining that the injury was indeed caused by a slip on the stairs.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the owners of the shearing shed had breached their duty of care to Mr. Hill by failing to install a non-slip strip on the stairs, and whether the trial judge's apportionment of liability between the owner and the employer was appealably erroneous.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the injury was caused by a slip on the stairs. While acknowledging that the owners had followed a WorkCover guide and that the stairs complied with relevant standards, the Court found that the evidence disclosed particular risk factors that necessitated further measures. Applying the principles of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), the Court determined that a reasonable exercise of care required the installation of a non-slip strip. However, the Court varied the apportionment of liability, finding the employer had also breached its duty of care.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the original verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and entering a new judgment for a reduced amount. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $462,508 and in lieu thereof verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $346,881.

3. No order as to costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.