Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Macura - [2005] NSWCA 386

CITATION:
Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Macura [2005] NSWCA 386
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S):
19/10/05

JUDGMENT DATE:

11 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Mason P at 1; Campbell AJA at 2; Gzell J at 3

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Verdict and judgment for injured workman set aside and in lieu verdict and judgment for warehouse owner.

CATCHWORDS:
TORTS - Negligence - Duty of Care - Employee of company caring out warehouse functions sustained back injury unloading a container of electrical goods - Whether injured workman owed a duty of care by warehouse owner analogous to the non-delegable duty owed by an employer to an employee - Whether warehouse owner owed a duty of care to the injured workman of the type in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1985-1986) 160 CLR 16

LEGISLATION CITED:
District Court Act 1973
Suitors’ Fund Act 1951

CASES CITED:
TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie [2003] NSWCA 47
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmiling Co Pty Ltd (1985-1986) 160 CLR 16
Boral Roof Tiles v O’Brien, NSWCA, unreported, 15 December 1994

PARTIES:
Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd - Claimant
Miroslav Macura - Opponent

FILE NUMBER(S):
CA 41134/04

COUNSEL:
P Morris - For Claimant
J B Hall QC/ R McCloghry - Opponent

SOLICITORS:
Eugene Lepore & Associates Solicitors - Claimant
James Tuite & Associates Lawyers - Opponenet

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
3791/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Graham DCJ

CA 41134/04

MASON P
CAMPBELL AJA
GZELLJ
FRIDAY 11 NOVEMBER 2005

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v MACURA

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Gzell J

2 CAMPBELL AJA: I agree with Gzell J.

3 GZELL J: Miroslav Macura, the opponent, was employed by Skilled Engineering Pty Ltd. He had an injured back that he did not disclose to Skilled Engineering. He sustained a further injury to his back while working in a warehouse owned by Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd, the claimant. Graham DCJ found that Samsung owed a duty of care to Mr Macura which it had breached causing Mr Macura’s further injury. He apportioned one third of the responsibility for the injury to Skilled Engineering and he apportioned 20% against Mr Macura for contributory negligence.

4 Samsung seeks leave to appeal against those conclusions and against his Honour’s admission into evidence of an expert report. Leave is required because his Honour entered a verdict for Mr Macura of less than $100,000.00 (District Court Act 1973, s 127(2)(c)(i)).

Background

5 Samsung was an importer and a distributor of electrical goods. It received goods into its warehouse, held them securely and then distributed them. Samsung entered into an arrangement with Skilled Engineering for it to carry out these warehousing tasks. At the front of the building was Samsung’s office. The warehouse was to the rear. There was an office in it at floor level.

6 The only employee of Samsung in the…

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 Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Macura 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: [2005] NSWCA 386
Decision Date: 11 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (Samsung) was the defendant in proceedings brought by Mr Macura, an employee of a third-party logistics company engaged by Samsung to perform warehouse functions. Mr Macura sustained a back injury while unloading a container of electrical goods. He alleged that Samsung owed him a duty of care. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Samsung owed Mr Macura a duty of care analogous to the non-delegable duty owed by an employer to an employee, and whether Samsung owed Mr Macura a duty of care of the type described in *Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd*.

The Court of Appeal found that Samsung did not owe Mr Macura a non-delegable duty of care. It reasoned that such a duty typically arises in an employer-employee relationship, where the employer has control over the employee's work and is responsible for their safety. In this instance, Mr Macura was employed by a separate company, and Samsung did not exercise the requisite degree of control over his specific tasks to establish a similar duty. The court also considered the principles in *Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd*, which outlines factors relevant to the existence of a duty of care in negligence, particularly in situations involving independent contractors. The court concluded that the relationship between Samsung and Mr Macura did not give rise to the type of duty of care contemplated by that case.

Leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The verdict and judgment in favour of Mr Macura were set aside, and in their place, a verdict and judgment were entered for Samsung.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Verdict and judgment for injured workman set aside and in lieu verdict and judgment for warehouse owner.

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:	Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Macura [2005] NSWCA 386 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	19/10/05
JUDGMENT DATE:	11 November 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Campbell AJA at 2; Gzell J at 3
DECISION:	Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Verdict and judgment for injured workman set aside and in lieu verdict and judgment for warehouse owner.

CATCHWORDS:	TORTS - Negligence - Duty of Care - Employee of company caring out warehouse functions sustained back injury unloading a container of electrical goods - Whether injured workman owed a duty of care by warehouse owner analogous to the non-delegable duty owed by an employer to an employee - Whether warehouse owner owed a duty of care to the injured workman of the type in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1985-1986) 160 CLR 16
LEGISLATION CITED:	District Court Act 1973 Suitors’ Fund Act 1951
CASES CITED:	TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie [2003] NSWCA 47 Stevens v Brodribb Sawmiling Co Pty Ltd (1985-1986) 160 CLR 16 Boral Roof Tiles v O’Brien, NSWCA, unreported, 15 December 1994
PARTIES:	Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd - Claimant Miroslav Macura - Opponent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 41134/04
COUNSEL:	P Morris - For Claimant J B Hall QC/ R McCloghry - Opponent
SOLICITORS:	Eugene Lepore & Associates Solicitors - Claimant James Tuite & Associates Lawyers - Opponenet

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	3791/03
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Graham DCJ