Hunt v State of NSW; Shipton v State of NSW

In this case, the plaintiffs, Hunt and Shipton, brought claims against the State of New South Wales for damages arising from personal injuries they sustained during their employment as drivers in the VIP Driver Protection Programme at the Police Service School of Traffic and Mobile Policing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs contended that the injuries they suffered were a result of the foreseeable risk of injury, and that there were measures available to prevent the injury or minimise the risk, such as the use of harness seatbelts and modifications to the vehicle seats. They argued that these measures should have been implemented by the State, and that their injuries and subsequent medical conditions were a direct result of the State's failure to do so.

The court was required to determine whether the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs were indeed due to a foreseeable risk of injury, and if so, whether there were measures available that could have prevented or minimised the risk. Additionally, the court had to assess the nature and extent of each plaintiff's medical condition and disability, and the degree to which their injuries were contributed to by their own negligence. The court also had to consider whether the State's alleged failure to implement safety measures constituted a novus actus interveniens, and how this affected the calculation of damages.

The court found that the State had breached its duty of care by failing to implement safety measures that could have prevented or minimised the risk of injury to the plaintiffs. It was determined that the use of harness seatbelts and modifications to the vehicle seats were reasonable measures that should have been taken. The court held that the plaintiffs' medical conditions were directly caused by their injuries sustained in the course of employment, and that the State's contributory negligence and failure to implement safety measures were significant factors in this causation. The court further found that the plaintiffs' contributory negligence did not constitute a novus actus interveniens, and that their damages should be calculated accordingly.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for the injuries and medical conditions they sustained as a result of the State's breach of duty of care. The specific amounts awarded to each plaintiff were determined based on the nature and extent of their injuries and the degree of contributory negligence. The court's decision highlighted the importance of employers taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks of injury in the workplace, and the potential consequences of failing to do so.