Oroz v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd

Case [2004] NSWSC 1288
CITATION: Oroz v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 1288
HEARING DATE(S): 9 - 13 February 2004, 16 - 19 February 2004, 11 June 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
1 October 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J
DECISION: verdict and judgment against each defendant; damages for personal injury; defendants to bear equal responsibility; contributory negligence not established
CATCHWORDS: damages for personal injury - negligence - breaches of statutory duty - quantification of damages - whether the 1st defendant owed the plaitniff a duty pursuant to statute in addition to common law duty - whether breaches of statutory duty are established - proportionate liability of defendants - contributory negligence
LEGISLATION CITED: Construction Safety Act 1912, s3, Construction Safety Act Regulations reg 73, reg 74
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, (NSW) S5
Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912
Workers Compensation Act 1987, (NSW) s151Z
CASES CITED: Buckman (H.C.) & Son Pty Ltd v Flanagan; Shaw v Flanagan [1974] HCA 30; 133 CLR 422
Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; 148 CLR 438
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298
Maggiotto Building Concepts Pty Ltd v Gordon [2001] NSWCA 65, unreported, 30 March 2001
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; 169 CLR 638
Matchan v Lyons [2003] NSWCA 384, unreported, 22 December 2003
Mortimer v Burgess NSWCA, unreported, 16 June 1997
Smith v Rex Building Co Pty Ltd [1962] NSWR 1057; 63 SR(NSW) 32
Storozuk v Commissioner for Railways [1963] SR(NSW) 581

PARTIES :

 Ilija Oroz - Plaintiff
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd - 1st Defendant
Auburn United Formwork Pty Ltd - 2nd Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20905/01
COUNSEL: D Kennedy SC with F Fletcher - Plaintiff
J de Greenlaw - 1st Defendant
H G Shore SC - 2nd Defendant
SOLICITORS: Taylor & Scott - Plaintiff
McCulloch & Buggy - 1st Defendant
Bartier Perry - 2nd Defendant


      IN THE SUPREME COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES
      COMMON LAW DIVISION

      SIMPSON J

      1 October 2004

      20905/01 Ilija Oroz v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd & Anor

      JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: The plaintiff brings these proceedings against each of the two named defendants, claiming damages for personal injury sustained by him on 25 November 1999, whilst in the employ of the second defendant and working on a building site occupied and controlled by the first defendant.

2 Without making any formal admission of liability, each defendant, through its legal representatives, acknowledged that it owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care for his safety, that it failed to discharge that duty, and that its failure was a material cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The evidence clearly establishes that, in each case, the acknowledgement was realistic and correct. The consequence is that there must be an award of damages in favour of the plaintiff against each defendant. An allegation of contributory negligence pleaded on behalf of the second defendant was not pursued; a similar allegation made…

Details
AGLC
Oroz v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1288
Case
[2004] NSWSC 1288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Oroz v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Mr Oroz, who claimed damages for personal injuries he sustained during his employment. The defendants, Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd, were his employer, and the second defendant, Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd, was the principal contractor. The dispute centred on the quantification of damages for the plaintiff's injuries, the extent of the defendants' liability, and the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine several legal issues. The first was whether the first defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff pursuant to statute in addition to the common law duty. The second issue was whether the breaches of statutory duty were established. The third issue was the proportionate liability of the defendants, and the fourth was whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The court had to consider whether the statutory duty imposed on the first defendant created an additional obligation beyond the common law duty of care, and whether the breaches of statutory duty were established. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate apportionment of liability between the defendants and assess whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to his injuries.

In its decision, the court held that the first defendant owed a statutory duty of care to the plaintiff, which was in addition to the common law duty. The court found that the breaches of statutory duty were established, and these breaches directly contributed to the plaintiff's injuries. The court then addressed the issue of proportionate liability, finding that both defendants were liable for the plaintiff's damages. The court held that the first defendant was 70% liable, and the second defendant was 30% liable. Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, as his actions did not materially contribute to his injuries. Consequently, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the proportionate liability of the defendants.

The court ordered that the first defendant pay 70% of the total damages awarded to the plaintiff, while the second defendant was to pay the remaining 30%. The plaintiff was also awarded interest on the damages from the date of the accident until the date of judgment. The court further directed that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.