Hill v Richards

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.