Scott v Boral Timber Tasmania Pty Ltd - [2000] TASSC 120

[2000] TASSC 120

CITATION: Scott v Boral Timber Tasmania Pty Ltd [2000] TASSC 120

PARTIES:  SCOTT, Peter
  v
  BORAL TIMBER TASMANIA PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  209/1993
DELIVERED ON:  30 August 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 May 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  R W Pearce & G L Jones
             Defendant:  J L Parrish & N Sweeney
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Douglas & Collins
             Defendant:  Page Seager

Judgment ID Number: [2000] TASSC 120
Number of paragraphs: 33

Serial No 120/2000
File No 209/1993

PETER SCOTT v BORAL TIMBER TASMANIA PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
30 August 2000

On 10 July 1990 the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a plant operator at its premises at Longreach, when he suffered an injury to his back as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

At the premises an export woodchip plant was operated. It was on the banks of the Tamar River so that woodchips could be loaded into ships direct from large storage heaps. Logs were brought to the premises by trucks and piled in rows in a large storage yard, about as big as a football ground. When required, logs were taken from there to the chipper. However, some of the logs were too big for the chipper and first had to be split.

The operation whereby logs were split was carried out in the storage yard on a concrete area, referred to in evidence as the splitting pad. Describing it as rectangular, the plaintiff estimated the dimensions of the pad as 40 feet long and 20 feet wide. Mr Garry Preece thought its width was greater than that, because logs were laid across its width and most logs were 30 feet long. I will describe its length as if on a north south axis. Along and next to the western side of the pad, one of its longer sides, was a large heap of logs, referred to by the plaintiff as bed logs. They were used as a backstop against which logs were pushed when being split.

Two machines were operated in the course of the splitting, a TCM and a larger Komatsu. A photograph of a TCM was tendered in evidence. It was an articulated four-wheeled vehicle, the rubber tyres of which the plaintiff thought were about six feet high. At its front were forks, one at each side, which could be slid under a log or logs and a clamp brought down on top of the load, thus securing it for transportation. The TCM was used to place logs on the splitting pad for splitting by the Komatsu, to remove the split pieces from the pad and place them in storage piles and to push away rubbish generated by the splitting operations.

The Komatsu was much bigger than a TCM, perhaps twice the length and capacity. It was also articulated…

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 Scott v Boral Timber Tasmania Pty Ltd 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: [2000] TASSC 120
Decision Date: 30 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scott v Boral Timber Tasmania Pty Ltd involved an employee, Peter Scott, who suffered a back injury while working as a plant operator for the defendant, Boral Timber Tasmania Pty Ltd. The incident occurred on 10 July 1990 at the defendant's woodchip plant located on the banks of the Tamar River in Longreach. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide a safe system of work and place of employment, leading to his injury. The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached its duty of care, implied term of contract, or statutory duty. The key issues included whether the defendant took reasonable precautions for the plaintiff's safety and whether the system of work was adequate. The court considered the evidence of the plaintiff and Garry Preece, a fellow employee and shop steward, and compared the defendant's system of work with that used by a previous contractor, Lloyds North. The court concluded that the defendant had a reasonable system in place, which included regular brooming of the splitting pad and required the TCM operator to keep a lookout for large pieces of material. The court found that the plaintiff's injury was likely caused by his failure to keep a proper lookout. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and entered judgment in favor of the defendant.

Orders