Re: Baker v Hanlon, Evans & Unity Dairy Foods - [1999] QSC 142

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane  No.1271 of 1994
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Mackenzie
[re: Baker v Hanlon, Evans & Unity Dairy Foods]
BETWEEN:
  TREVOR MICHAEL BAKER
  Plaintiff
AND:
  GRAHAM HANLON
  First Defendant
AND:
  MARGARET EVANS
  Second Defendant
AND:
  QUEENSCO - UNITY DAIRY FOODS
  CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LTD
  Third Defendant

JUDGMENT - MACKENZIE J.

Judgment delivered 9 July 1999
CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - General Principles - whether employer breached statutory duty under the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1989 - contributory negligence - Assessment of Damages.
Hyne & Son Pty Ltd v Tomlinson (Court of Appeal, Appeal No 8283 of 1997, unreported, 22 May 1998)
Hedge v Hedge (Court of Appeal, Appeal No 4911 of 1996, unreported, 7 November 1997)

Workplace Health & Safety Act 1989

Counsel: Mr R Trotter for the plaintiff
Mr R Morton for the defendant

Solicitors: Richardson McGhie for the plaintiff
Corrs Chambers Westgarth as town agents for
Quinlan Miller Treston for the defendants

Hearing Dates:                  30 April 1999, 4-5 May 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane  No.1271 of 1994
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Mackenzie
[re: Baker v Hanlon, Evans & Unity Dairy Foods]
BETWEEN:
  TREVOR MICHAEL BAKER
  Plaintiff
AND:
  GRAHAM HANLON
  First Defendant
AND:
  MARGARET EVANS
  Second Defendant
AND:
  QUEENSCO - UNITY DAIRY FOODS
  CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LTD
  Third Defendant
JUDGMENT - MACKENZIE J.

Judgment delivered 9 July 1999

This is an action for damages for negligence and for breach of statutory duty under the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1989. The plaintiff was employed by the third defendant. He was injured in an accident at his place of work when he fell off the back of a semi-trailer, owned by the second defendant and driven by the first defendant. There is no dispute that he fell while loading empty plastic milk crates into the vehicle. The circumstances in which the accident occurred are in dispute.
To load the vehicle, it was reversed into a loading bay with the rear doors open. Three metal flaps on the loading bay, which were hinged to the edge of the bay and could hang down approximately vertically or stand in an upright position at about 60 degrees to the surface of the bay (as shown in Exhibits 10 and 26) could be positioned to form a bridge between the loading bay and the vehicle by resting them on the floor of the vehicle when it was being loaded. The crates were stackable because of a 5 to 10 millimetre rim at the bottom which interlocked with the crate below. Each crate was about 1 foot x 1 foot x 1 foot.
As pleaded, the plaintiff's case was that on 28 October 1992, he was loading milk crates onto the vehicle. While he was doing so the first defendant suddenly and without warning drove the vehicle away from the loading bay causing the plaintiff to fall heavily to the ground. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff caused or contributed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re: Baker v Hanlon, Evans & Unity Dairy Foods and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] QSC 142
Decision Date: 9 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Baker v Hanlon, Evans & Unity Dairy Foods was heard, involving the plaintiff, Trevor Michael Baker, who sought damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty under the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1989. The plaintiff was employed by Unity Dairy Foods Cooperative Association Ltd and was injured while loading milk crates onto a semi-trailer owned by the second defendant and driven by the first defendant. The circumstances of the accident were contested, with the plaintiff claiming that the truck suddenly moved without warning, causing him to fall. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had reentered the truck and attempted to reposition fallen crates, ignoring warnings not to do so, and that the truck driver proceeded to move the vehicle as he believed loading was complete.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the employer breached their statutory duty under the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1989, assessing contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and quantifying the damages. The court had to evaluate the credibility of conflicting witness testimonies, the adequacy of the loading procedures, and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on his life.

The court found that the employer was negligent and in breach of statutory duty for not having a clear system in place to signal to the driver when it was safe to move the truck. The driver was also found negligent for moving the vehicle without receiving a direct indication that it was safe to do so. However, the court determined that the plaintiff contributed to his injuries by reentering the truck and attempting to reposition fallen crates, despite warnings from a fellow employee. The plaintiff's degree of contribution was assessed at 40%. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, considering pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and other factors, and calculated the total amount to be $392,559.22. After applying the apportionment for contributory negligence and deducting a Workers' Compensation Board refund, the final judgment awarded the plaintiff $200,243.43, with costs to be taxed.

Orders