Legal Research
Cases
Smith v Australian Woollen Mills Ltd

Smith v Australian Woollen Mills Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 8 December 1933 25 min read

Contents

On this page

50 CLR 504

THE AUSTRALIAN WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Workers' CompensationInjury- Arising out of and in the course of the employ.

ment -Fainting fit-Diabetic reaction-Machine with guard rails-Zone of special danger-Workers Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.) (No. 15 of 1926-No. 36 of 1929), secs. 6 (1), 7. Nov. 27, 28;

A worker was employed by a firm of wool carders, and, in the course of his duties, he walked along a passageway between some wool-carding machines. The passageway was protected by guard rails on either side of it. The worker, who suffered from diabetes had a fainting fit which was due to his diabetic condition and fell against the guard rails, and as a result sustained injury.

Held, that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.).

50 CLR 505

OF AUSTRALIA, Lander v. British United Shoe Machinery Co., (1933) 149 L.T. 395, not Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Smith V. Australian Woollen Mills Ltd., (1933) 33 S.R. (N.S.W.) 260 50 N.S.W.W.N. 124, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

A claim for compensation was made, under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.), by Charles William Smith against the Australian Woollen Mills Ltd. in respect of incapacity caused by injuries received by him on 17th June 1932, when he fell whilst on duty at his place of employment with the company. The applicant had been employed by the company for over sixteen years as the minder of a wool-carding machine. In the room in which he worked there were eight wool-carding machines of large dimensions used for converting scoured wool into a continuous thread. In each machine were twenty-four large cross-drums. An overhead shaft driven by an electric motor supplied power to each of the machines by means of a belt, and the power was conveyed by means of smaller belts to the various drums through fixed pulleys situated at their ends. Each machine was guarded by two iron railings-the upper four feet, and the lower two feet, in height supported by uprights fitted into slots in the wooden floor. On pressure the iron rails gave a little backwards and forwards. The passageway between the railings was about four feet wide. On 17th June 1932, the applicant commenced work at about 7.30 a.m. and about 3 p.m. was walking between two machines with the object of "piking," that is, picking the waste wool from the ends of the spindles on which the drums revolved. He had walked twenty feet from the back towards the front of the machine, and the last he remembered before the accident was that he was walking. His next recollection was of being in the ambulance which took him to a hospital. The doctor who, after the accident, attended the applicant at the respondent's works when he was unconscious, and later at 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 Smith v Australian Woollen Mills 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: [1933] HCA 60
Decision Date: 8 December 1933

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a claim for workers' compensation. The appellant, Charles William Smith, a diabetic worker employed by the respondent, Australian Woollen Mills Ltd., suffered injuries when he fell against guard rails surrounding wool-carding machines. The primary issue was whether these injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, as required by the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.).

The legal questions before the High Court were whether there was evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Commission's findings that the employment brought the worker within a "zone of special danger" and that his incapacity for five weeks was a result of injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Supreme Court had answered both questions in the negative, leading to the present appeal.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the injury sustained by the worker arose out of his employment because the conditions of his work placed him in proximity to the guard rails, which were part of the industrial plant. The Court emphasised that the nature and extent of the injury were determined by his physical contact with these industrial surroundings, a circumstance established by his employment. Drawing on established legal principles, the Court held that when a workman is injured by physical contact with a part of the premises where he works, and this contact is caused by a personal condition, the employment materially contributes to the injury if the object causing the injury is peculiar to the work or occupation and not common to everyday life. The Court found that the guard rails, being part of the manufacturing premises and distinctively industrial, met this criterion.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Supreme Court discharged, and the case stated remitted to the Workers' Compensation Commission with the indication that the second question was answered affirmatively, rendering the first question unnecessary to answer. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders