Legal Research
Cases
Richards v Cornford

Richards v Cornford

Case [2009] NSWDC 60 7 May 2009

Workplace Injury

Unconscionable Conduct

Breach of Duty of Care

Contract of Service

Personal Injury Law

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Richards v Cornford [2009] NSWDC 60
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): March 4-6, 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Murrell SC DCJ

CATCHWORDS: WORKPLACE INJURY - work trial - "engaged under a contract of service" - unloading accident - "caused by a defect in the vehicle" - "obvious risk" - "inherent risk" - requirement to plead defences in Division 4 of the Civil Liability Act. DISTRICT COURT EXTENDED JURISDICTION

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002 Division 4
District Court Act 1973 s51(1)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Motor Accidents Act 1988
Uniform Civil Pocedure Rules 2005
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

CASES CITED: Allianz Aust v GSF Aust [2005] HCA 26
Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130
Bebe v Woolworths Limited (District Court of New South Wales, Elkaim J, 11 July 2008, unreported)
Birkett v Tubbo Estate Co Pty Ltd (1997) 14 NSWCCR 369
Dederer v Roads & Traffic Authority [2005] NSWSC 185
Dietrich v Dare (1980) 30 ALR 407
Drzyzga v G & B Silver Pty Ltd [1994] NSWCC 12
Helmers v Department of Corrective Services (1997) 14 NSWCCR 248
MD v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2009] NSWDC 22
Port Stephens Council v Theodorakakis [2006] NSWCA 70
Teen Ranch Proprietary Ltd v Brown (1995) NSWCCR 197
Toll Pty Ltd v Dakic [2006] NSWCA 58
TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie [2003] NSWCA 47
Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v CSR Ltd [2001] NSWCA 261

PARTIES: Danielle Richards (Plaintiff)
Ian Cornford (First Defendant)
Taringha House (Second Defendant and Cross-Claimant)
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (Cross-Defendant)
NRMA (Intervenor)

FILE NUMBER(S): 4344/05

COUNSEL: Mr Lidden SC for the Plaintiff
Mr Rowe for the First and Secod Defendants (and Cross-Claimant)
Mr Stewart for the Cross-Defendant
Mr Khandhar for the Intervenor

1 Danielle Richards applied for a position as a truck driver with Ian Cornford and Taringha House Pty Ltd. By way of undertaking a "work trial", on 2 August 2004, she accompanied Mr Cornford when he drove a truck on delivery rounds. Mr Cornford collected a full truckload of milk pallets and drove to Coles, Lindfield. There, Ms Richards observed him to unload one pallet using a manual pallet jack to transfer the pallet from the rear of the truck on to a horizontal tailgate loader. The tailgate loader was lowered to the ground by mechanical means and the pallet was wheeled off the loader. Wishing to improve her job prospects, Ms Richards offered to unload the second pallet. When the pallet was positioned over the tailgate loader, Mr Cornford startled Ms Richards by yelling "drop it, drop it". She "dropped" the pallet. She then fell a distance of over 1 metre from the end of the tailgate loader to the ground. She injured her right knee. Since then, she has not worked.

2 Taringha House was insured by QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited against personal injury caused by…

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 Richards v Cornford

Details

AGLC: Richards v Cornford [2009] NSWDC 60
Case: [2009] NSWDC 60
Decision Date: 7 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of New South Wales presided over a trial concerning a workplace injury sustained by the plaintiff, Richards, during an unloading accident involving a vehicle owned by the defendant, Cornford. The dispute centred on the extent of Cornford's liability for the injuries sustained by Richards. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the accident was caused by a defect in the vehicle, as claimed by Richards, or if the injuries were due to an inherent risk associated with the job, as argued by Cornford. The court's task was to decide whether Cornford could rely on the statutory defences outlined in Division 4 of the Civil Liability Act.

The central legal issue revolved around whether the accident was attributable to a defect in the vehicle, which would render Cornford liable, or whether the injury resulted from an inherent risk of the plaintiff's occupation, which would absolve Cornford of liability. The court was required to examine the circumstances surrounding the accident and assess whether the defect in the vehicle constituted a cause of the injury or if the risk involved was inherent to the nature of Richards' employment. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether Cornford had properly pleaded and proven the defences available under Division 4 of the Civil Liability Act.

The court concluded that the accident was caused by an inherent risk of the plaintiff's occupation, rather than a defect in the vehicle. It was determined that the risks associated with unloading vehicles were inherent to Richards' job, and thus Cornford could not be held liable for the injuries sustained. The court found that the plaintiff had not established that the accident was caused by a defect in the vehicle, nor had the defences under Division 4 of the Civil Liability Act been successfully pleaded or proven by Cornford. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Orders