Taylor v Stapley

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal arose from an application for workers' compensation made by Bertha Stapley, the mother of Thomas Stapley, a sixteen-year-old trainee carpenter. Thomas Stapley had been temporarily employed by George M. Taylor, a builder, and tragically drowned in the Nepean River during his lunch break on 11 January 1952. The employer denied liability, arguing that the injury was not caused in the course of employment and that the deceased had voluntarily subjected himself to an abnormal risk.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Workers' Compensation Commission was entitled to find that the deceased had not voluntarily subjected himself to an abnormal risk of injury, as required by section 7(1)(e)(ii) of the *Workers' Compensation Acts 1926-1951* (N.S.W.), and whether the burden of proof rested on the applicant to establish the conditions of liability under that section. The deceased, a poor swimmer, had gone swimming in the Nepean River with colleagues during his lunch recess. The river was swollen and flowing more swiftly due to recent rain. While wading back from a sandbank, the deceased entered deeper water, got into difficulties, and drowned.

Dixon C.J. and Taylor J. held that the question of whether a risk is "abnormal" is largely a question of fact and degree, to be determined by the Workers' Compensation Commission. They reasoned that the deceased had intentionally gone to bathe in the river, but his decision to cross at a point that led him into deeper water appeared to be an error of judgment rather than a voluntary submission to an abnormal risk. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof for the conditions of liability under section 7(1)(e), excluding serious and wilful misconduct, rests with the applicant. They concluded that it was open to the Commission, on the evidence presented, to find that the deceased had not voluntarily subjected himself to an abnormal risk, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed. Webb J. dissented, finding that on the evidence, the Commission was not entitled to make such a finding.

The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.