Richards v Richardson - [1994] QCA 78

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 078
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	Appeal No. 47 OF 1993
Brisbane
Before Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Pincus Mr Justice Lee

[Richards v. Union Steel and Richardson]

BETWEEN:

KRISTINE ROSEANN RICHARDS

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

KEVIN HARRY RICHARDSON
(First Defendant) First Respondent

AND:

BUNGE PROPERTIES PTY LTD
(Second Defendant) Second Respondent

AND:

THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF QUEENSLAND
(Defendant by Election)

Third Respondent

AND:

SUNCORP INSURANCE AND FINANCE

(Third Party)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A.

Judgment delivered 06/04/1994

The plaintiff is the widow of Gary Ronald Richards, who was killed by crushing under a forklift which he had been operating at his place of work on 4 September 1987. She brought an action for damages for negligence on her own behalf and on behalf of her son against the deceased's employer, Union Steel, and Kevin Harry Richardson, an owner- driver of a prime mover and semi-trailer involved in the accident which caused the death of the deceased.

Before the hearing of the action quantum of damages was settled between the parties at $214,000 and liability between the defendants, or more accurately between the Workers Compensation Board and Suncorp Insurance and Finance, the licensed insurer of Richardson's vehicle, was also settled.

The question left for determination in the action was whether either defendant was negligent and, if so, whether the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence. The learned trial judge determined the first of these questions against the plaintiff and consequently did not need to decide the second. The plaintiff appeals against the judgment for the defendants which followed from that determination.

The deceased was a forklift operator of five years' experience. He had been employed by Union Steel for about eighteen months, including about six to nine months as a foreman. He was competent as a foreman and forklift operator.

The accident occurred during the unloading, from the trailer of Richardson's vehicle, by means of the forklift operated by the deceased, of a quantity of aluminium pipes, about 30 feet long, encased in wooden boxing consisting of long planks held together in a square by transverse members at intervals along its length. Some steel plate had to be loaded onto the trailer. It was required by Richardson, and agreed to by the deceased, that, in order to load it, the aluminium pipes should first be unloaded, the plate loaded and then the pipes re-loaded on top of the steel plate.

This was to prevent damage to the aluminium pipes.

The area where the unloading took place was a concrete apron or roadway between two large warehouses. Although the width of this apron or roadway, that is the distance between the warehouses, was not stated, the learned trial judge thought that it appeared from photographic evidence to be wide enough to accommodate four or five semi-trailers in parallel. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that estimate as a measure of its width. However, the evidence established that steel stacked…

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 Richards v Richardson 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: [1994] QCA 78
Decision Date: 6/04/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Richards v Richardson involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Richards, and the defendant, Richardson, concerning an incident that occurred during the course of Richards' employment with Richardson's company. Richards, an experienced employee, was injured while performing a task that was inherently dangerous. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the employer had a duty to provide a safe system of work and whether the employer was negligent in failing to account for the possible inadvertent or negligent conduct of the employee. Another significant issue was whether the employer had reasonably left the responsibility for the safe system and workplace to the employee, given his skill and experience, or if the employer retained overall responsibility. The court also considered whether the employer had provided adequate instruction to the employee.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the employer had a duty to provide a safe system of work and to ensure that the workplace was free from obvious and recurrent dangers. The court held that even though the employee was experienced, the employer could not reasonably leave the responsibility for the safe system and workplace to the employee alone. The employer retained overall responsibility for the safety of the workplace. The court also found that the employer had not provided adequate instruction to the employee, which contributed to the incident. Therefore, the employer was held to be negligent in failing to take into account the possible inadvertent or negligent conduct of the employee.

The court ordered that the employer was liable for the injuries sustained by the employee and that the employee was not solely responsible for his injuries. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, Richards, and directed the defendant, Richardson, to pay the awarded amount. The specific details of the damages and the reasoning behind the quantum of damages were outlined in the judgment.

Orders