Mayhew v Lewington's Transport Pty Ltd

Mayhew commenced proceedings against Lewington’s Transport Pty Ltd, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained while working as a driver for the defendant company. Mayhew alleged that the injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence, in particular, that the employer failed to ensure that the truck he was driving was fit for the purpose of transporting goods. The defendant denied the allegations, and pleaded contributory negligence by Mayhew. The case proceeded to trial before a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which found in favour of Mayhew on liability, but apportioned 50% of the fault to Mayhew for contributory negligence. The defendant appealed against the verdict.

The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the issue of contributory negligence. The defendant argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by failing to distinguish between mere inadvertence or misjudgement on the part of the plaintiff, and contributory negligence, which required a finding of some fault on the part of the plaintiff that contributed to their own injury. The court had to consider whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury had correctly articulated the distinction between mere inadvertence or misjudgement and contributory negligence.

The court held that the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury, as he had not sufficiently distinguished between mere inadvertence or misjudgement and contributory negligence. The court held that contributory negligence required a finding of some fault on the part of the plaintiff that contributed to their own injury, whereas mere inadvertence or misjudgement did not necessarily involve any fault on the part of the plaintiff. The court held that the trial judge’s directions had not adequately distinguished between the two concepts, and that this error may have led the jury to find contributory negligence where there was none. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of contributory negligence, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a new trial on the issue of damages.

The court did not make any orders for costs.