Legal Research
Cases
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 13 February 1986 65 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.

STEVENS v. BRODRIBB SAWMILLING COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED; GRAY v. BRODRIBB SAWMILLING COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED

(1986) 160 CLR 16

13 February 1986

Negligence

Negligence—Vicarious liability—Employee or independent contractor—Supervision—Control—Logging operations—Trucker injured by negligence of snigger—Liability of sawmiller for whom both performed work—Independent contractor—Liability of principal for injury sustained in performing work—Extra-hazardous activities—Safe system of work—Duty of principal to provide—Breach of duty.

Decisions

MASON J.: These appeals, which are brought from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, arise out of an action for damages for personal injuries commenced in the Supreme Court by the appellant Roy Albert Stevens against the appellant Stanley Charles Gray and the respondent Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd ("Brodribb"). They raise significant issues concerning the liability of an employer to a person engaged to perform a function forming part of the employer's business operations for injuries caused through the carelessness of another.

2. Brodribb is the owner of a large hardwood sawmill at Orbost in eastern Victoria for which it conducts extensive logging operations on the nearby Errinundra Plateau under licences from the Forests Commission of Victoria ("the Commission"). The licences, which are issued in accordance with the provisions of the Forests Act 1958 (Vic.), grant exclusive rights to remove timber from designated areas of forest, subject to conditions which include compliance with certain directions given by officers of the Commission. It has not been suggested, however, that officers of the Commission are in any way responsible for ensuring the safety of persons engaged in logging operations.

3. In order to facilitate its logging operations, Brodribb's practice over the years has been to engage persons whose functions fall within three categories, namely, felling, snigging and truck driving, and to allocate them to specified parts of its logging areas known as "compartments". It is the function of a feller to fell trees and of a snigger to push or pull logs to a loading ramp constructed by him by means of a tractor or bulldozer and to load them onto trucks for delivery to the sawmill by the truck driver. The logging operations are overseen by a "bush boss" who is an employee of Brodribb.

4. It was in the course of such logging operations that Stevens' injuries were sustained. In November 1977, while engaged by Brodribb as a truck driver, he was struck by a log. For the purpose of loading Stevens' truck Gray was making use of a loading ramp which had been constructed by him one week before. The selection of the site at which the ramp was constructed was the joint decision of Gray, the bush boss and an officer of the Commission. However, the construction of the ramp, in accordance with Brodribb's standard practice, had been entirely a matter for Gray. It was a simple earthen structure retained by one large log at the front, next to which Stevens drove his truck. Along the slope of the ramp…

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 Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co 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: [1986] HCA 1
Decision Date: 13 February 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stevens (the appellant) brought proceedings against Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (the respondent) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when a tree he was felling fell on him. The appellant was engaged by the respondent to fell trees on the respondent's property. The appellant alleged that the respondent was negligent in failing to provide a safe system of work, specifically by failing to warn him of the dangerous nature of the particular tree he was felling and by failing to provide him with adequate assistance. The trial judge found in favour of the respondent, and the appellant appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court considered whether the respondent had been negligent in its selection of the appellant for the task, in failing to provide adequate supervision or assistance, and in failing to warn the appellant of any specific dangers associated with the tree. The court also had to consider the extent to which the appellant, as an experienced woodsman, bore responsibility for his own safety.

The High Court, by majority, held that the respondent did owe a duty of care to the appellant. The court reasoned that where an employer engages an independent contractor to perform work, and the employer retains a degree of control over the manner in which the work is performed, or where the work is of a dangerous nature, a duty of care may arise. In this instance, the respondent had retained some control over the appellant's activities and had not adequately warned him of the specific dangers of the tree. The court found that the respondent had breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the appellant's safety, particularly in relation to the provision of assistance. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for assessment of damages.

Orders