COMPANY LIMITED Negligence-Duty of care-Employer-System of work-Duty to provide safe system-
Direction as to performance of work-Duty to direct-Various modes of perform- ance-Propriety of direction given-Risk of injury to employee-Reasonable foreseeability.
S., a labourer employed by B.H.P., was directed together with one W., a fellow employee, to go to the roof of a battery of coke ovens to collect scrap iron and other debris and clear it from the roof. The roof was a large flat area sufficiently high to render it dangerous if anyone should fall from it. There was an iron-rail fence three-and-a-half feet high, all around the roof. The rail was hinged at one point SO that it could be lifted up against a post and an opening made therein. At this point a winch was available for raising or lowering material, to which point was to be brought the scrap iron and other debris for discharge to a heap lying below in the yard. S. and W. collected a considerable quantity of rubbish. A barrow load was lowered by means of the winch and to do this the gate was opened by lifting the rail. the scrap iron over from the top of the battery to the ground below. The gate was closed by lowering the rail and the scrap iron thrown over. There remained on the roof a wooden packing case weighing about one hundred pounds with some hoop iron and nails projecting from it which had been noticed by S. The foreman told the two men to throw the box over the side. To do this they opened the gate, swung the box two or three times and then let go in order to throw it through the gap made by lifting the rail. Some pro- jection on the box caught in a glove worn by S. as the box was thrown and he was dragged from the roof to the ground below sustaining severe injuries in
respect of which he brought an action for damages against the employer company. At the hearing a verdict was directed in favour of the company and from this decision S. appealed.
Held, that there was no evidence of a breach by the company of its duty to S. Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Smith V. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. (1956) 74 W.N. (N.S.W.) 195, affirmed.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
On 19th November 1954 Claude Vivian Reay Smith, a labourer employed by The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited, brought proceedings against that company in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to recover damages for injuries sustained by him on 1st October 1954 whilst engaged with another employee of the company in clearing certain scrap iron and debris from the roof of a coke-oven at the defendant's works at Newcastle. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant company had been negligent in the care control and…
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 Smith v Broken Hill Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Smith v The Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1957] HCA 34
Case
[1957] HCA 34
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Claude Vivian Reay Smith, a labourer, brought proceedings against his employer, The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, seeking damages for injuries sustained when he fell from the roof of a coke oven. Smith alleged that the company was negligent in its management of the premises, its failure to provide a safe system of work, and its failure to provide suitable equipment, thereby exposing him to unnecessary risk. The trial judge directed a verdict in favour of the company, finding no evidence of negligence. Smith appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which dismissed his appeal. Smith then appealed to the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the employer had breached its duty of care to provide a safe system of work and whether the foreman's instructions to dispose of a packing case by throwing it over the side of the roof constituted negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the risk of injury to Smith was reasonably foreseeable and if the employer had taken adequate precautions to mitigate any such risk. The court also considered whether the method adopted by Smith and his colleague to dispose of the case, which led to the accident, was a foreseeable consequence of the employer's instructions or a deliberate choice by the employees.
The High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Court, holding that there was no evidence of a breach of the employer's duty of care. The court reasoned that the task of throwing the packing case over the side, when performed in a reasonably sensible and careful manner, did not involve any real risk of injury. The court found that the accident occurred due to the extraordinary and unnecessary method employed by Smith and his colleague, including the deliberate swinging of the box and the presence of projecting nails, which were not reasonably foreseeable by the employer. The employer's duty of care did not extend to anticipating such an unusual and careless method of performing a simple task.