Negligence - Breach of statutory duty - Plaintiff stepping on wet surface - Whether plaintiff contributorily negligent - Assessment of damages - Whether injuries caused by accident and/or pre-existing conditions - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Defendant employer liable - No contributory negligence - Total award in damages $525,658

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K J Bonomelli
Defendant: Mr P P McCann

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Anthony Torre & Monaco
Defendant: Phillips Fox

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Commissioner for Railways v Ruprecht (1978) 142 CLR 563
Davies v Swan Motor Co (SWANSEA) Ltd [1949] 2 KB 291
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81‑192
McLean v Tedman & Anor (1984) 155 CLR 306

Case(s) also cited:

Adams v Ascot Iron Foundry Pty Ltd (1968) 72 SR (NSW) 120
Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649
Baird v Roberts [1977] 2 NSWLR 389
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1986] WAR 32
Bowen v Tutte [1990] A Tort Rep 81-043
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd, unreported; HCt of Australia; 27 April 1951
Commissioner for Railways v Halley (1978) 20 ALR 409
Crombie v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (WA) (1997) 17 WAR 291
Gardner Brothers & Perrott (WA) Pty Ltd v Seat; SCt of WA; Library No 7318; 13 October 1988
Haber v Walker [1963] VR 339
Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18
Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Linsell v Robson [1976] 1 NSWLR 249
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
O'Connor v The Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251
Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 10 ALR 303
Van Velzen v Wagener (1975) 10 SASR 549
Vandeloo v Waltons Ltd [1976] VR 77
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

VIOL DCJ: The plaintiff who was born on 31 October 1958 and is now 42 years of age, was employed by, at all material times, the defendant as a rigger.
The plaintiff says he was injured in an accident at work on 16 August 1996. The plaintiff has alleged that the accident was the result of the negligence of the defendant and…

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.

Continue reading Hinnen v Mitchell Erectors Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hinnen v Mitchell Erectors Pty Ltd [2001] WADC 3
Case: [2001] WADC 3
Decision Date: 19 JANUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hinnen v Mitchell Erectors Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Mr Hinnen, who claimed damages from the defendant, Mitchell Erectors Pty Ltd, for injuries he sustained after slipping on a wet surface at the defendant's construction site. The dispute centered on whether the defendant breached its statutory duty to ensure the safety of the premises, and if the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain a safe environment for the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence, if any, absolved or reduced the defendant's liability. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of the damages claimed by the plaintiff, considering whether his injuries were solely due to the accident or exacerbated by pre-existing conditions.

The court found that the defendant did indeed breach its statutory duty by not ensuring that the area was safe from hazards, such as wet surfaces. However, the plaintiff's contributory negligence was also considered, as he failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. Despite the contributory negligence, the court ruled that the defendant remained liable for the majority of the damages, considering the severity of the breach. The plaintiff's injuries were deemed to be primarily due to the accident, and the court awarded him damages, taking into account both his immediate and long-term suffering.

The final orders included a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, with the defendant required to pay compensation reflecting the assessed damages, reduced by the proportion attributable to the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Orders