Legal Research
Cases
Puleio v Olam Orchards Pty Ltd

Puleio v Olam Orchards Pty Ltd

Case [2018] VSC 109 21 March 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MILDURA
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CIVIL CIRCUIT LIST

S CI 2016 03931

SANDRA PULEIO	Plaintiff
v
OLAM ORCHARDS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ZAMMIT J
WHERE HELD:	Mildura
DATE OF HEARING:	30 October 2017 to 3 November 2017, 8 to 13 November 2017, 16 November 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 March 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Puleio v Olam Orchards Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 109

---

NEGLIGENCE – Duty of care – Nervous shock – Agricultural accident – Death caused by alleged negligence of employer – Nervous shock suffered by wife of deceased after being told of husband’s death – Deceased intoxicated at time of accident – Whether evidence of intoxication admissible – Whether duty of care owed to plaintiff – Scope of duty owed to deceased – Whether employer breached duty – No evidence that employer breached duty – Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 applied – Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269; Homsi v Homsi [2016] VSC 354; Hardy v Mikropul Australia Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 42 discussed – Transport Accident Act 1986 s 93; Road Safety Act 1986 ss 56–7.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Tobin SC with Mr M Seelig	Ryan Legal
For the Defendant	Mr R Middleton QC with Mr J Plunkett	Transport Accident Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
Factual background............................................................................................................. 2
The plaintiff............................................................................................................. 2
The deceased and his accident............................................................................. 3
Ownership and operation of Annuello............................................................... 5

The claim............................................................................................................................... 6
The evidence........................................................................................................................ 8
For the plaintiff:...................................................................................................... 8
For the defendant:.................................................................................................. 9
Relevance of the Saunders report........................................................................ 9
Failure to call certain witnesses......................................................................... 10

Duty of care........................................................................................................................ 13
What duty was owed to the plaintiff?............................................................... 13
What was the scope of the duty owed to the deceased?................................ 16

Breaches alleged by the plaintiff..................................................................................... 20
Admissibility of the toxicology report........................................................................... 21
Applicable legislation......................................................................................... 23
Presumption of regularity.................................................................................. 26
Plaintiff’s submissions......................................................................................... 27
Defendant’s submissions.................................................................................... 28
Analysis................................................................................................................. 30
Significance of toxicology report....................................................................... 31

Was there a failure to prevent alcohol consumption on the premises?.................... 32
Was there a failure to provide adequate training?....................................................... 37
Was there a failure to supervise and provide proper guidelines?............................ 39
Was there a failure with regards to fatigue and permitting the deceased to remain on the premises overnight?.............................................................................................. 48
Conclusion as to breach.................................................................................................... 50
Overall conclusion............................................................................................................ 51

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, Mrs Sandra Puleio, is the widow of Francesco Puleio (‘the deceased’). The deceased was an employee of the defendant, Olam Orchards Australia Pty Ltd, and died on 29 August 2013 at the ‘Annuello’ orchard in Wemen, Western Victoria, when a slasher, which was attached to a Kubota tractor, rolled onto him (‘the accident’). The deceased had been using the tractor and slasher attachment to mow grass on a sloped headland. The critical issue in this case is the deceased’s level of intoxication at the time of the accident.

The plaintiff claims her husband’s death…

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 Puleio v Olam Orchards Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Puleio v Olam Orchards Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 109
Case: [2018] VSC 109
Decision Date: 21 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Puleio v Olam Orchards Pty Ltd dealt with a claim for nervous shock brought by the wife of a deceased worker who was killed in an agricultural accident. The wife alleged that the employer, Olam Orchards Pty Ltd, was negligent in causing her husband's death and that she suffered nervous shock as a result. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issues before the court were whether a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty was breached by the employer.

The court examined the scope of the duty of care owed by an employer to its employees and the extent to which this duty might extend to family members of the deceased. It considered whether the employer breached any duty owed to the deceased and if such a breach resulted in the accident. The court also addressed the admissibility of evidence concerning the deceased's intoxication at the time of the accident. Applying the principles established in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt, the court assessed whether the employer's actions or omissions were reasonably foreseeable to have caused the accident.

The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the employer breached any duty of care owed to the deceased. The court emphasised that the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees, and there was no evidence that the employer's actions or omissions directly contributed to the accident. Furthermore, the court determined that the deceased's intoxication was not relevant to the issue of negligence. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for nervous shock was dismissed. The court concluded that the employer's actions did not amount to a breach of duty that would have caused the accident.

Orders