Rivett Arboricultural & Waste Equipment Hire Pty Ltd v Conor Patrick Evans

Rivett Arboricultural & Waste Equipment Hire Pty Ltd and two others appealed against findings of liability in the South Australian District Court, which held that they were liable for injuries sustained by Conor Patrick Evans and his father, Christopher Evans. Conor was injured while using a wood chipper on premises owned by WMC, and Christopher suffered psychological injury as a result of witnessing Conor's injury. The trial judge found that Rivett, Arbor, and WMC breached duties of care owed to Conor and Christopher and apportioned responsibility, with 70% against Rivett and Arbor, and 30% against WMC. The appellants argued that they were not liable, that Conor was contributorily negligent, and that the judge erred in apportioning liability. Rivett and Arbor further argued that the judge erred in rejecting the claim against the fourth respondent, Mr Zwar, regarding the duty of care and scope of duty of WMC, Rivett, and Arbor, and whether WMC was vicariously liable for Mr Zwar's actions. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The court had to determine whether WMC, Rivett, and Arbor were liable for Conor's and Christopher's injuries, whether WMC was vicariously liable for Mr Zwar's actions, and if Conor was contributorily negligent. The court also had to consider the apportionment of responsibility and the applicability of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The appellate court reviewed the trial and the judge's reasons, bearing in mind the limitations of an appellate court proceeding on the record. The court found that the trial judge's findings were not erroneous and that the appellants' arguments were not persuasive.

The court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that WMC, Rivett, and Arbor were liable for Conor's and Christopher's injuries. The court found that WMC was vicariously liable for Mr Zwar's actions, and that Conor was not contributorily negligent. The court also found that the apportionment of responsibility was appropriate and that the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) was not applicable. The court varied the costs order made by the trial judge, ordering that the first defendant (Rivett) and the second defendant (Arbor) pay the third defendant's (WMC) costs in relation to the quantum of the first plaintiff's damages after 12 August 2005, these costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client. The parties were to be heard as to any incidental orders.