Legal Research
Cases
Hodge v CSR Limited

Hodge v CSR Limited

Case [2010] NSWSC 27 2 February 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Hodge v CSR Limited [2010] NSWSC 27

HEARING DATE(S): 24-26 November, 1-4 December 2008, 15 December 2009, 2 February 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 February 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Hislop J

DECISION: (1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $533,220.59. (2) Verdict for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $271,755.32. (3) Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $260,901.41. (4) The defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs. (5) Verdict and judgment for the second defendant on its cross claim against the first defendant in the sum of $260,901.41 plus any costs paid by the second defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to the order made in subparagraph 134(4). The first defendant to pay the second defendant's costs of the second defendant's cross claim. (6) Verdict and judgment for the second defendant on the first defendant's cross claim against it. The first defendant to pay the second defendant's costs of that cross claim.

CATCHWORDS: Common law - personal injury - worksite - negligence - damage.

LEGISLATION CITED: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946
Workers Compensation Act, 1987
Civil Liability Act, 2002
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act, 1998

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1
Jones v Dunkel [1959] 101 CLR 298
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 99
Joslyn v Berriman [2003] HCA 34; (2003) 214 CLR 552
Waverley Council v Ferreira [2005] NSWCA 418
Glynn v Challenge Recruitment Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 203
Medlin v SGIC [1995[ HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1

PARTIES: Peter Hodge (Plaintiff)
CSR Limited formerly t/as Readymix Holdings Pty Limited (1st Defendant)
Adecco Industrial Pty Limited (2nd Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20541/06

COUNSEL: A.J. Bartley SC/L. Morgan (Plaintiff)
N.E. Chen (1st Defendant)
D. O'Dowd (2nd Defendant)

SOLICITORS: LHD Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Riley Gray Spencer Lawyers (1st Defendant)
Gillies Delaney Lawyers (2nd Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HISLOP J

2 February 2009

20541/06 PETER HODGE v CSR LIMITED formerly t/as READYMIX HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED & ANOR
JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 The plaintiff was employed by the second defendant, a labour hire company. His services were hired, inter alia to the first defendant. He alleges he sustained injury to the cervical spine as a result of using a jackhammer weighing approximately 25 kilograms to remove concrete which had solidified in the agitator barrel of one of the first defendant’s concrete agitator trucks. The injury allegedly occurred on the premises of the first defendant at Wyong NSW. The plaintiff seeks damages from the defendants for his injury.

2 The defendants have denied liability to the plaintiff and have alleged that any injury sustained by him was caused or contributed to by his own negligence. The defendants dispute the quantum of damages recoverable in the event the plaintiff obtains a verdict…

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 Hodge v CSR Limited

Details

AGLC: Hodge v CSR Limited [2010] NSWSC 27
Case: [2010] NSWSC 27
Decision Date: 2 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hodge v CSR Limited was a case heard by the High Court of Australia, involving a dispute between the plaintiff, Hodge, and the defendant, CSR Limited. The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries he sustained while working at a site managed by CSR Limited. Hodge alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of CSR Limited in failing to provide a safe worksite. The case revolved around whether CSR Limited was liable for the injuries sustained by Hodge due to their alleged failure to maintain a safe work environment.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether CSR Limited owed a duty of care to Hodge and if that duty was breached, resulting in Hodge's injuries. The court also needed to determine if the injuries were directly caused by CSR Limited's negligence or if there were other contributing factors. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent to which Hodge's own actions may have contributed to his injuries, and how this would impact the liability of CSR Limited.

The court found that CSR Limited did owe a duty of care to Hodge as an employee on their worksite. However, the court also concluded that Hodge's own actions played a significant role in causing his injuries. The court held that while CSR Limited was negligent in failing to provide a safe worksite, Hodge's contributory negligence reduced the amount of damages he could recover. The court ultimately decided that CSR Limited was liable for the injuries sustained by Hodge but that the damages should be reduced in accordance with Hodge's contributory negligence.

The final orders of the court were that CSR Limited was to pay Hodge damages for his injuries, reduced by the proportion of his contributory negligence. The exact amount of damages was not specified in the text.

Orders