Iannello v BAE Automation and Electrical Services Pty Ltd - [2008] VSC 544

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT WARRNAMBOOL COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 1362 of 2007

SANTO IANNELLO	Plaintiff
v
BAE AUTOMATION AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES PTY LTD	Defendants
VWA	Plaintiff
v
COLAC OTWAY SHIRE COUNCIL & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool and Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23, 24, 25, 26 September and 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 20 October 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 December 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Iannello v BAE Automation and Electrical Services Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 544

---

TORT – Negligence – Workplace injury involving fall through skylight on roof – Contribution – Apportionment of liability between employer, occupier and architect – Relevance of experience of employee - Contributory negligence

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J.B. Richards SC with	Stringer Clark
Mr J.J. Fitzpatrick
For BAE	Mr P.A. Scanlon QC	Lander & Rogers
with Mr W.R. Middleton
For Colac Otway Shire	Mr A. Ramsey	Hunt & Hunt
For Tiena Pty Ltd	Mr N. Rattray	Ebsworth & Ebsworth
For Victorian Workcover	Ms K. Galpin	Hall & Wilcox
Authority HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, Mr Santo Iannello, suffered a serious injury to his head and spine when, on 4 February 2005, he fell through an acrylic skylight on the roof of the Colac Otway Performing Arts and Cultural Centre (“COPACC”). He brings this proceeding against his employer, BAE Automation and Electrical Services Pty Ltd, the owner and occupier of COPACC, the Colac Otway Shire Council (“the Council”) and Bradbury, Dicker Whitnall (now known as Tiena Pty Ltd), the architect responsible for the design of major renovations and refurbishment to COPACC carried out between 1999 and 2000.
In addition to Mr Iannello’s proceeding, the Victorian WorkCover Authority (“VWA”) brings an action against the Council and Tiena pursuant to s 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (“the Act”). At the commencement of the hearing I ordered that this proceeding be heard at the same time as the Plaintiff’s claim.
Notices of contribution were exchanged by the three defendants. The VWA proceeding requires a determination of proportionate liability. The issues that arose for my determination at the commencement of the trial were:

(a)

Whether there was any negligence on the part of BAE which was a cause of Mr Iannello’s injuries and, if so, in what proportion should BAE be held responsible in Mr Iannello’s claim.

(b)

Whether there was any negligence on the part of the Council which was a cause of Mr Iannello’s injuries, and, if so, what proportion of responsibility it should bear in relation to his claim. In addition if found liable to Mr Iannello, then it may follow that it is liable to VWA at the same proportionate liability.

(c)

Whether there was any negligence on the part of Tiena and, if so, what proportion of responsibility it should bear in relation to Mr Iannello’s claim. In addition if found liable to Mr Iannello, then it may follow that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Iannello v BAE Automation and Electrical Services Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] VSC 544
Decision Date: 4 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Iannello and BAE Automation and Electrical Services Pty Ltd concerned a workplace injury resulting from the plaintiff's fall through a skylight on the roof. The dispute centred around the allocation of liability among the employer, the occupier, and the architect, as well as the relevance of the employee's experience and the applicability of contributory negligence. The Industrial Court of Queensland was tasked with resolving these issues.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the principles of negligence and the apportionment of liability among the parties involved. Specifically, the court had to determine the extent to which each party was responsible for the accident, considering the employer's duty of care, the occupier's maintenance responsibilities, and the architect's design and warning obligations. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff's experience and knowledge of the risks should influence the apportionment of liability and whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to the incident.

The court examined the roles and responsibilities of each party involved in the incident. It found that the employer had a duty to ensure a safe working environment, which included providing adequate warnings about potential hazards. The occupier, responsible for maintaining the roof, was also held accountable for any defects or dangers that could cause harm. The architect's design was scrutinized for any shortcomings that might have contributed to the accident. The court concluded that all parties shared responsibility for the incident, with the employer bearing the largest portion of the liability due to their direct control over the worksite. The plaintiff's experience was considered, but it did not absolve the employer of their primary duty to ensure safety. The court found the plaintiff partially at fault due to contributory negligence, reducing their compensation accordingly.

The court ordered the employer, BAE Automation and Electrical Services Pty Ltd, to pay the majority of the plaintiff's damages, reflecting their primary responsibility for ensuring a safe work environment. The occupier and the architect were also ordered to contribute to the damages, albeit to a lesser extent. The plaintiff's compensation was reduced by a percentage corresponding to their contributory negligence, ensuring that the final award reflected the overall fault distribution among the parties.

Orders