SYD MATTHEWS & CO PTY LTD -v- CAVANAGH [2005] WASCA 178
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASCA 178 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:18/2004 | 11 AUGUST 2005 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER JA ROBERTS-SMITH JA MILLER AJA | 19/09/05 | |
| 39 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal in relation to issue of liability and contributory negligence dismissed Cross-appeal on the issue of liability dismissed Appeal in relation to damages allowed Case remitted to District Court for reassessment of damages | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SYD MATTHEWS & CO PTY LTD TREVOR PAUL CAVANAGH |
Catchwords: | Negligence Duty of care Employer and employee Safe system of work Sheep carter climbing the side of sheep truck Opening gate to sheep pen on truck Charged by a sheep and knocked to ground Whether employer ought to have warned worker of the risk of injury and trained or instructed him in ways to avoid injury in the course of his work Negligence Contributory negligence Employee injured when opening gate to sheep pen on a sheep truck and knocked by a sheep to the ground Experienced employee Whether employee took sufficient care for his own safety Damages Loss of earning capacity Extent to which accidentcaused injuries contributed to loss of earning capacity Effect of other injuries suffered on other occasions Approach to assessment of loss of earning capacity Gratuitous services Whether services allowed were properly services rendered to the respondent for disabilities caused by injuries sustained in accident Broad range of services by a number of different persons Future travelling expenses Accuracy of calculation Reimbursement of workers' compensation |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649 Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 214 ALR 349 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161 Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 McLean v Tedman (1985) 155 CLR 306 Neill v New South Wales Fresh Food & Ice Pty Ltd (1963) 108 CLR 362 Newman v Nugent (1992) 12 WAR 119 O'Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225 Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46 Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 Wagner v Midland Junction Abattoir Board [1963] WAR 84 Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Company [1958] 2 QB 110 Australian Iron & Steel v Krstevski (1973) 128 CLR 666 Duyvelshaff v Cathcart & Ritchie Ltd [1973] Qd R 11 F v R (1983) 33 SASR 189 Fennell v Supervision & Engineering Services Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 47 SASR 6 Kingshott v Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co Aust Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 707 Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672 Martin v… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Syd Matthews & Co Pty Ltd v Cavanagh 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2005] WASCA 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Syd Matthews & Co Pty Ltd, brought an action against the defendant, Cavanagh, in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from an incident where the defendant, a sheep carter, was charged by a sheep while opening a gate to a sheep pen on a truck, resulting in injuries that impaired his earning capacity. The defendant argued that the employer, the plaintiff company, was negligent in failing to warn him of the risks and provide adequate training to avoid such injuries. The plaintiff, in turn, argued that the defendant was contributorily negligent by not taking sufficient care for his own safety. The case involved the determination of the employer's duty of care, the adequacy of the employee's actions to avoid injury, and the extent to which the accident-caused injuries contributed to the loss of earning capacity.
The court was required to decide whether the employer owed a duty of care to warn the employee of the risks and provide necessary training to avoid injury, and if the employee was contributorily negligent. The court had to assess whether the employer's failure to provide specific warnings or training constituted negligence. Additionally, the court needed to determine the extent of the employee's contributory negligence, considering his experience and the reasonable precautions he could have taken. The court also needed to address the issue of damages, including the assessment of loss of earning capacity and the effect of other injuries on this assessment.
The court found that the employer did not owe a duty of care to warn the employee of the risks and provide specific training. The court determined that the employee was contributorily negligent for not taking sufficient care for his own safety, given his experience. The court allowed the appeal regarding damages, finding that the assessment of loss of earning capacity was inadequate. The court held that the services provided to the employee were not gratuitous and that future travelling expenses should be accurately calculated. The court remitted the case to the District Court for reassessment of damages.
The court dismissed the appeal in relation to the issue of liability and contributory negligence and the cross-appeal on the issue of liability. The appeal in relation to damages was allowed, and the case was remitted to the District Court for reassessment of damages.
The court was required to decide whether the employer owed a duty of care to warn the employee of the risks and provide necessary training to avoid injury, and if the employee was contributorily negligent. The court had to assess whether the employer's failure to provide specific warnings or training constituted negligence. Additionally, the court needed to determine the extent of the employee's contributory negligence, considering his experience and the reasonable precautions he could have taken. The court also needed to address the issue of damages, including the assessment of loss of earning capacity and the effect of other injuries on this assessment.
The court found that the employer did not owe a duty of care to warn the employee of the risks and provide specific training. The court determined that the employee was contributorily negligent for not taking sufficient care for his own safety, given his experience. The court allowed the appeal regarding damages, finding that the assessment of loss of earning capacity was inadequate. The court held that the services provided to the employee were not gratuitous and that future travelling expenses should be accurately calculated. The court remitted the case to the District Court for reassessment of damages.
The court dismissed the appeal in relation to the issue of liability and contributory negligence and the cross-appeal on the issue of liability. The appeal in relation to damages was allowed, and the case was remitted to the District Court for reassessment of damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal in relation to issue of liability and contributory negligence dismissed
Cross-appeal on the issue of liability dismissed
Appeal in relation to damages allowed
Case remitted to District Court for reassessment of damages
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.