Negligence - Employer and employee - Duty of care - Breach of duty - Forseeability of risk of injury - Likelihood of harm occurring - Safe system of work - Employer's duty to provide - Farm worker injured when motor cycle collided into gate - Failure to mark gate as to make its presence apparent - Gate closed across laneway making it inconspicuous and hazardous to users

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants (Defendants) : Mr M H Zilko
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Mr B G Bradley

Solicitors:

Appellants (Defendants) : Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Moss Bradley

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

Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
Betts v Whittingslowe (1945) 71 CLR 637
Bus v Sydney City Council (1989) 167 CLR 78
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Richard Evans & Co Ltd v Astley [1911] AC 674
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 18; (2000) 74 ALJR 743; (2000) 170 ALR 594
Snell v Farrell (1990) 72 DLR (4th) 289
Teubner v Humble (1963) 108 CLR 491
Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co v English [1938] AC 57
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Case(s) also cited:

Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18
Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438
March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424

MALCOLM CJ: This is an appeal against a judgment in the District Court dated 16 December 1999 by which his Honour Judge Macknay gave judgment for the respondent by way of the sum of $275,000 damages for negligence, in addition to payments previously made by the appellants to the respondent by way of workers' compensation and ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the action to be taxed.
The central issue raised by the appeal was whether the evidence led before the learned trial Judge was sufficient to enable his Honour to conclude, as he did, that on the balance of probabilities the accident by which the respondent was injured was caused by the negligence of the appellants.
The respondent's claim against the…

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 Lock v Lock

Details

AGLC: Lock v Lock [2001] WASCA 20
Case: [2001] WASCA 20
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Lock and Lock. The nature of the dispute was centred around an incident where a farm worker was injured when his motor cycle collided into a gate. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues were whether the employer had breached their duty of care by failing to ensure a safe system of work and whether the employer could have reasonably foreseen the risk of injury to the employee.

The court examined whether the employer had taken all reasonable steps to ensure a safe working environment. It was determined that the employer had failed to mark the gate in such a way as to make its presence apparent, which led to the gate being closed across the laneway and becoming hazardous to users. The court found that the employer had breached their duty of care by not providing a safe system of work. The employer's failure to mark the gate meant that it was not visible to the employee, resulting in the collision and subsequent injury. The court concluded that the employer could have reasonably foreseen the risk of injury due to the lack of visibility of the gate.

The court ordered the employer to pay compensation to the employee for the injuries sustained. The judgment highlighted the importance of employers taking all necessary steps to ensure the safety of their employees in the workplace. The court emphasised that employers must provide a safe system of work, which includes ensuring that potential hazards are clearly marked and visible to employees. The decision serves as a reminder to employers of their duty to provide a safe working environment and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders