S J Sanders Pty Ltd v Schmidt - [2012] QCA 358

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

S J Sanders Pty Ltd v Schmidt [2012] QCA 358

PARTIES:

S J SANDERS PTY LTD
ACN 074 002 163
(appellant)
v
HEINZ JOHANN SCHMIDT
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6370 of 2012
DC No 2802 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

1. The appeal be dismissed, with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the respondent suffered personal injuries when he fell whilst exiting from a prime mover in the course of his employment with the appellant – where the respondent claimed his personal injuries were caused by the negligence and/or breach of contract of the appellant, its servants or agents – where the trial judge found the respondent’s personal injuries were caused by the negligence of the appellant – where the appellant appeals the trial judge’s findings on the grounds that they were not supported by the evidence, were contrary to expert evidence, and were not reasonably open on the evidence – whether the appeal should be allowed

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – PARTICULAR PERSONS AND SITUATIONS – where the trial judge found the appellant was negligent in failing to implement increased slip resistance to a step configuration of the prime mover – where the appellant contended that even if the step configuration was defective such a defect was not readily ascertainable by the appellant upon any reasonable inspection or reasonable use of the prime mover – where the prime mover had a reputation for safety – where the appellant’s employees had used the prime mover without raising complaints about its safety – whether the appellant discharged its obligation to provide proper plant and equipment to its employees

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – INSTRUCTIONS AND WARNINGS – where the trial judge found the appellant was negligent in failing to implement and maintain a safe system of work by failing to instruct drivers on a safe method of exiting the prime mover – where the appellant contends there was no evidence that any instruction by the appellant to its employees would have made any difference – where the appellant contends the proposed safe method of exiting the prime mover would, at best, only have reduced the likelihood of the fall – whether the trial judge’s finding was supported by the evidence

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 28(1)

Bus v Sydney County Council (1989) 167 CLR 78; [1989] HCA 29

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 S J Sanders Pty Ltd v Schmidt 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: [2012] QCA 358
Decision Date: 18 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of S J Sanders Pty Ltd v Schmidt involved a claim by the respondent, who was an employee of the appellant, against the appellant for personal injuries sustained in a fall from the appellant’s prime mover. The respondent alleged that the injuries were due to the negligence and/or breach of contract by the appellant or its servants or agents. The trial judge found the appellant to be negligent and awarded damages to the respondent. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge’s findings were not supported by the evidence, were contrary to expert evidence, and were not reasonably open on the evidence.

The central legal issues in the appeal revolved around the appellant's duty of care towards its employee. The first issue was whether the appellant was negligent in failing to implement increased slip resistance on the step configuration of the prime mover. The appellant contended that any defect in the step configuration was not readily ascertainable by reasonable inspection or use. The second issue was whether the appellant was negligent in failing to instruct drivers on a safe method of exiting the prime mover. The appellant argued that any such instruction would not have made a difference and that the proposed safe method would only have reduced, not eliminated, the likelihood of falls.

The court found that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence. The court held that the appellant had a duty to provide proper and safe plant and equipment and to instruct employees on safe work practices. The court noted that the appellant's prime mover had a reputation for safety, but this did not absolve it from the duty to ensure that the equipment was safe. The court also found that the trial judge’s conclusions on the foreseeability of the injuries and the appellant’s failure to provide adequate instructions were reasonably open on the evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the trial judge was upheld. The court found that the appellant was liable for the respondent’s injuries due to its negligence in not providing a safe step configuration and not instructing employees on a safe method of exiting the prime mover. The costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed, with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	S J Sanders Pty Ltd v Schmidt [2012] QCA 358
PARTIES:	S J SANDERS PTY LTD ACN 074 002 163 (appellant) v HEINZ JOHANN SCHMIDT (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6370 of 2012 DC No 2802 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Boddice J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	1. The appeal be dismissed, with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the respondent suffered personal injuries when he fell whilst exiting from a prime mover in the course of his employment with the appellant – where the respondent claimed his personal injuries were caused by the negligence and/or breach of contract of the appellant, its servants or agents – where the trial judge found the respondent’s personal injuries were caused by the negligence of the appellant – where the appellant appeals the trial judge’s findings on the grounds that they were not supported by the evidence, were contrary to expert evidence, and were not reasonably open on the evidence – whether the appeal should be allowed TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – PARTICULAR PERSONS AND SITUATIONS – where the trial judge found the appellant was negligent in failing to implement increased slip resistance to a step configuration of the prime mover – where the appellant contended that even if the step configuration was defective such a defect was not readily ascertainable by the appellant upon any reasonable inspection or reasonable use of the prime mover – where the prime mover had a reputation for safety – where the appellant’s employees had used the prime mover without raising complaints about its safety – whether the appellant discharged its obligation to provide proper plant and equipment to its employees TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – INSTRUCTIONS AND WARNINGS – where the trial judge found the appellant was negligent in failing to implement and maintain a safe system of work by failing to instruct drivers on a safe method of exiting the prime mover – where the appellant contends there was no evidence that any instruction by the appellant to its employees would have made any difference – where the appellant contends the proposed safe method of exiting the prime mover would, at best, only have reduced the likelihood of the fall – whether the trial judge’s finding was supported by the evidence Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 28(1) Bus v Sydney County Council (1989) 167 CLR 78; [1989] HCA 29