London and West Australian Exploration Co Ltd v Ricci - [1906] HCA 72

4 C.L.K.] OF AUSTF.ALIA.

C)17

[HIGH C:OURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

LONDON AND WEST AUSTRALIAN

Appellants;

EXPLORATION CO. LTD. .

Defendants,

ALBERTO RICCI

Respondent.

Plaintiff,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

Master and He.rvant—Mine—Otvnei— Ner/lifiejice—Fellow-servant—Common employ■ ment—Mines Iteynlation Act 1895 [W.A.), (59 Viet. Mo. 37), sec. 23 (8).

H. C. of A.

1906.

By sec. 23 of the Mines Regulation Act (W.A.) (59 Viet. No. 37), rules are prescribed for the safety of workmen, to be observed wlierever reasonably jy^j, g g jg

Perth

practicable in every mine ; any person contravening or not complying with

the rules is made guilty of an offence against the Act, and so also is the Griffith C.J.,

manager of the mine if the rules are broken by any person whomsoever, Barton and

unless he shows that he has taken all reasonable means to prevent such breach

Higgins JJ.

to the best of his power. By sec. 20 of that Act the occurrence of an accident in a mine was declared to be primA Jade evidence of negligence on the part of the owner and manager ; and by sec. 27 a right of action against the owner for damages was given to any person injured “ through . . . . the non observance of the provisions of the Act ” if not solely due to the negligence of the person injured. Secs. 20 and 27 were repealed by the IForleis Co??i- pensation Act (W.A.) (1902 No. 5), which made provision under certain conditions for compensation to workmen for injuries whether caused by negligence or not. An action was brought against the owner of a mine for injuries sustained by reason of a breach of one of the provisions of sec. 23, committed by a fellow-workman of the plaintiff, who abandoned all causes of action other than under that section.

Held : Whether an action did or did not lie under the Mines Regulation Act (W.A.) (59 Viet. No. 37), as originally framed, against the owner of a mine for injuries sustained by reason of a breach of any of the provisions of the Act,

618 HIGH COURT

[1906.

H. C. OF A. although not due to acts of omission or commission on the part of the owner

1906.— (and semble it did not)—such an action does not lie under the Act as amended unless the owner has been guilty of some default for which he would

London and be responsible apart from sec. 23.

W est A us

tralian

E x

ploration P fr Hiijgim J. :—The civdl duty under the Act must be co-extensive with Co. Ltd.the criminal responsibility ; and, under the Act as amended, the mere fact

V.that a particular regulation has not been observed does not per se create a

Rioci.

criminal responsibility in the owner. Qucere, whether the doctrine of com mon employment is to be imported into actions based on an absolute statutory duty imposed…

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 London and West Australian Exploration Co Ltd v Ricci

Details

AGLC: London and West Australian Exploration Co Ltd v Ricci [1906] HCA 72
Case: [1906] HCA 72
Decision Date: 13 November 1906

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard an appeal in *London and West Australian Exploration Co Ltd v Ricci*. The dispute concerned the liability of the appellant mining company for injuries sustained by the respondent, an employee, in a mining accident. The respondent alleged negligence on the part of the appellant, while the appellant sought to rely on the defence of common employment.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant was liable for the injuries suffered by the respondent, notwithstanding the defence of common employment, under section 23(8) of the *Mines Regulation Act 1895* (W.A.). This provision imposed a duty on mine owners to securely fence all shafts and dangerous excavations.

The Court reasoned that section 23(8) of the *Mines Regulation Act 1895* created a statutory duty on the mine owner, the breach of which would render the owner liable for damages caused by that breach. The Court held that this statutory duty was absolute and could not be contracted out of or defeated by the common law defence of common employment. Therefore, the appellant's failure to securely fence the shaft, as required by the Act, made it liable for the respondent's injuries, irrespective of the negligence of any fellow servant.

Orders