Legal Research
Cases
Rogers v Brambles Australia Ltd

Rogers v Brambles Australia Ltd

Case [1996] QCA 437 8 November 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 437
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 189 of 1995

Brisbane

[Rogers v. Brambles]

BETWEEN:

CRAIG RAYMOND ROGERS

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED
A.C.N. 000164938

(Defendant) First Respondent
Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Shepherdson J.

Judgment delivered 8 November 1996

Separate concurring reasons for judgment of Pincus J.A. and McPherson J.A.; separate dissenting reasons for judgment of Shepherdson J.

1.          APPEAL ALLOWED.
2.          JUDGMENT BELOW SET ASIDE.
3.          JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IN THE SUM OF $129,216 WITH COSTS HERE AND BELOW.

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - Council of Shire of Wyong v. Shirt (1979) 146 C.L.R. 40 - rare event - act to reduce risk - breach of duty of care to employee - risk foreseeable.
Breach of statutory duty - s. 9(1) Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 (Q) - civil action - "practicable" - onus of proving impracticability lies on defendant employer.
Quantum - post-traumatic stress disorder - interest component between original judgment and appeal judgment.
Counsel:	Mr M Grant-Taylor for the appellant. Mr W Campbell for the first respondent.
Solicitors:	Messrs O’Brien for the appellant. Hunt & Hunt for the first respondent.
Hearing Date:	10 April 1996.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 189 of 1995.

Brisbane

Before Pincus J.A.

McPherson J.A. Shepherdson J.

[Rogers v. Brambles]

BETWEEN:

CRAIG RAYMOND ROGERS

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED
A.C.N. 000164938

(Defendant) First Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 8/11/1996

The appellant sued in the District Court for damages for negligence and breach of statutory

duty, the defendant being his former employer. The learned primary judge dismissed the action and the

appellant seeks a reversal of that decision. The judge assessed damages at $114,528.45; the appellant

says that amount is inadequate.

The appellant complains of an incident which occurred when he was working as a truck driver,

collecting refuse in a residential area in Nambour. The truck he was driving had dual controls, but he

was the sole operator and was in the left-hand seat. The system, now familiar, required him to stop

continually as he moved the truck along, positioning the vehicle precisely at each stop, so as to enable the mechanism toward the rear of the truck to pick up bins which had been placed ready for collection.

The ordinary method of operation was that the driver would position the truck partly by use of a mirror

or mirrors, and partly by turning his head to look to the rear; on each side of the truck there were two

rear-vision mirrors, one large and one small. The appellant’s principal contention is that if the

respondent had given proper consideration to the safety problems associated with operation of the

truck, it would have arranged for the affixation of an additional mirror showing not the rear of the truck,

but the front, below windscreen level; the basis of this contention is explained below.…

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 Rogers v Brambles Australia Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rogers v Brambles Australia Ltd [1996] QCA 437
Case: [1996] QCA 437
Decision Date: 8/11/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rogers v Brambles Australia Ltd involved an employee, Rogers, who suffered injuries while using a forklift at work. The dispute centered on whether Brambles, as the employer, had a duty of care to implement measures to reduce the risk of such an injury occurring. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether the employer breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of the employee being injured while operating the forklift. The court had to determine if the risk was foreseeable enough to impose a duty on the employer to act and whether Brambles took sufficient steps to address this risk.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the incident and the measures that Brambles had in place to ensure the safety of its employees. It considered the principles set out in Council of Shire of Wyong v. Shirt, which established that a foreseeable risk does not necessarily mean a duty of care exists unless it is also reasonable to implement precautions. The court weighed the balance between the foreseeability of the risk and the practicality of implementing additional safety measures. The court found that while the risk was foreseeable, Brambles had already taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk by providing training and safety protocols. However, the court concluded that further measures could have been taken to reduce the risk, and therefore, Brambles had breached its duty of care.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Rogers. The court found that Brambles did not take all reasonable steps to mitigate the foreseeable risk of injury to its employee. Consequently, the employer was held liable for the injuries sustained by Rogers. The court determined that additional safety measures, such as implementing a more rigorous inspection regime for the forklift, could have been implemented and were reasonably practicable. The final orders included compensation for Rogers for his injuries and damages resulting from the breach of duty by Brambles.

Orders