Legal Research
Cases
Lindsay-Field v Three Chimneys Farm Pty Ltd

Lindsay-Field v Three Chimneys Farm Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 29 September 2010 60 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7134 of 2009

MARGARET CLAIRE LINDSAY-FIELD	Plaintiff
v
THREE CHIMNEYS FARM PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	25, 26, 27, 30, 31 August 2010, 1, 2 September 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 September 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lindsay-Field v Three Chimneys Farm Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 436

---

NEGLIGENCE – Industrial accident – Employee injured in course of work on stud farm – Employee required to remove afterbirth of a mare without assistance - Breach of statutory duty – Whether employer’s response to risk of serious injury adequate – Relevance of industry practice – Breach of duty established – Breach of statutory duty not established – Damages – Assessment of loss of earning capacity – Malec v Hutton principles.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Richards SC and Mr A Ingram	Clark Toop and Taylor
For the Defendant	Mr G Lewis SC and Mr J Batten	Thompsons

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 28 September 2002 the plaintiff, Margaret Lindsay-Field, was kicked in the head by a mare, Sundance Girl,[1] at Newlands Stud, Avenel, where she was employed. She sustained a particularly nasty fracture of her facial bones and has been left with significant ongoing physical and psychological consequences to the extent that she has been unable to work since that time.
[1]Sundance Girl is referred to as “the mare”.

She now sues her employer, Three Chimneys Farm Pty Ltd, which operated the stud, essentially for its failure to provide adequate safety measures for its employees when engaged in the potentially hazardous task of removing the afterbirth from a mare who had just foaled.

Mrs Lindsay-Field carried out this task by herself, with the mare tied up to a fencing rail. She makes the following allegations relevant to her claim in both negligence and breach of statutory duty:

(a)That she should have been told that the mare had a proclivity to kick or, to use thoroughbred parlance, was “funny behind”. This would have resulted in the mare being placed in a crush so the afterbirth could be removed.
(b)That she should have been assisted in carrying out her work after the foaling by another employee; alternatively, that she should have been instructed to place the mare in a crush so that the removal of the afterbirth could have been accomplished without risk of injury; alternatively that she should have been provided with a helmet.
(c)That if no assistance or no crush was provided, then she should have been given precise instructions as to the safest manner in which to remove the afterbirth.

Three Chimneys denies negligence and contends that, consistent with industry practice, it was reasonable for Mrs Lindsay-Field to carry out her post-foaling tasks without assistance or the use of a crush. It also says that its employees had no knowledge of the mare being “funny behind” prior to Mrs Lindsay-Field…

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 Lindsay-Field v Three Chimneys Farm 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: [2010] VSC 436
Decision Date: 29 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lindsay-Field, an employee of Three Chimneys Farm Pty Ltd, a stud farm, suffered injuries during an industrial accident while on duty. The primary dispute was whether the employer had adequately fulfilled its statutory duty to provide a safe working environment, and if the employee’s injuries resulted in a quantifiable loss of earning capacity. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue revolved around the adequacy of the employer's response to the inherent risk of serious injury associated with the employee's task of manually removing a mare's afterbirth without assistance, and whether this constituted a breach of statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the injury resulted in a measurable loss of future earning capacity, applying the principles established in Malec v Hutton.

The court held that while the employer had implemented standard industry practices, these were insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of serious injury in the circumstances. Therefore, the employer's response to the risk was inadequate, establishing a breach of common law duty of care. However, the court found that the employer's adherence to industry practices meant that the breach of statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act was not established. Regarding the assessment of damages, the court applied the Malec v Hutton principles to determine the employee's loss of earning capacity, concluding that the injury did result in a quantifiable reduction in future earnings.

The Supreme Court found in favour of the employee, acknowledging the employer's breach of common law duty but not the statutory duty. The court awarded the employee damages for the loss of earning capacity, as determined under the relevant legal principles. This decision underscored the necessity for employers to ensure their risk management practices are sufficient to protect employees from serious harm, even when aligned with industry standards.

Orders