Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd v Stapleton - [1996] QCA 185

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 185
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No 255 of 1995

Brisbane

[Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australasia) Limited v. Stapleton]

BETWEEN

THOMAS BORTHWICK & SONS
(AUSTRALASIA) LIMITED

(Defendant) Appellant

AND

GREGORY CHARLES VICTOR STAPLETON

(Plaintiff) Respondent
Fitzgerald P
McPherson JA
Williams J

Judgment delivered 14/06/1996

Separate judgments of Fitzgerald P, McPherson JA and Williams J, all concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL ALLOWED. JUDGMENT BELOW BE VARIED BY SUBSTITUTING THE SUM OF $295,314.93 FOR THE SUM OF $424,289.62 WHERE IT APPEARS IN THE JUDGMENT. THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPELLANT'S TAXED COSTS OF THE APPEAL.

CATCHWORDS:	TORT - PERSONAL INJURY - CAUSATION. Master/servant - failure to warn of possibility of carpal tunnel syndrome - whether respondent would have acted pursuant to the warning. Duyvelshaff v. Cathcart & Ritchie Ltd (1973) 47 ALJR 410.
TORT - PERSONAL INJURY - QUANTUM. Master/servant - previous existing condition warranted a discounting - economic loss reduced to reflect continuing earning capacity - award of past and future care excessive.
Counsel:	Mr K Fleming for the appellant Mr Jones QC for the respondent
Solicitors:	Messrs Peter Searles & Associates for the appellant Messrs McKays for the respondent
Hearing Date:	28 May 1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 255 of 1995

Brisbane

Before

Fitzgerald P.
McPherson J.A.
Williams J.

[Borthwick & Sons v. Stapleton]

BETWEEN:

THOMAS BORTHWICK & SONS (AUSTRALASIA) LIMITED

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

GREGORY CHARLES VICTOR STAPLETON

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered the 14th day of June 1996

I agree with the reasons of G.N. Williams J. and with the order he proposes.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 255 of 1995

Brisbane

Before

Fitzgerald P.
McPherson J.A.
Williams J.

[Borthwick & Sons v. Stapleton]

BETWEEN

THOMAS BORTHWICK & SONS
(AUSTRALASIA) LIMITED

(Defendant) Appellant

AND

GREGORY CHARLES VICTOR STAPLETON

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered the 14th day of June 1996

I agree with the reasons of G.N. Williams J. and with the order he proposes.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No 255 of 1995

Brisbane

Before Fitzgerald P

McPherson JA
Williams J

[Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australasia) Limited v. Stapleton]

BETWEEN:

THOMAS BORTHWICK & SONS
(AUSTRALASIA) LIMITED

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

GREGORY CHARLES VICTOR STAPLETON

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - GN WILLIAMS J

Judgment delivered the 14th day of June 1996

The respondent, Gregory Charles Victor Stapleton, sued the appellant, Thomas Borthwick &

Sons (Australasia) Limited, claiming that as a result of negligence on the part of the appellant as his

employer in 1988 he developed carpal tunnel syndrome in each wrist which has seriously affected both

his lifestyle and prospects of employment. Contributory negligence was not an issue at the trial. After

a trial in the Circuit Court at Mackay the learned trial judge held that negligence on the part…

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 Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd v Stapleton

Details

AGLC: Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd v Stapleton [1996] QCA 185
Case: [1996] QCA 185
Decision Date: 14/06/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd v Stapleton, the plaintiff, Stapleton, brought an action against his employer for personal injury sustained during the course of employment. Stapleton, who had worked for the defendant company for several years, developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his repetitive work duties. The central dispute was whether the employer had a duty to warn Stapleton of the potential risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome and, if so, whether Stapleton would have heeded such a warning and taken preventive measures. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were the existence and scope of the employer's duty to warn employees of workplace hazards that may lead to personal injury. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether Stapleton would have reasonably acted upon such a warning, thereby mitigating or avoiding the injury altogether. The court also needed to consider the relevance of previous case law, particularly Duyvelshaff v. Cathcart & Ritchie Ltd, in determining the employer's obligations under the circumstances.

The court found that the employer did have a duty to warn Stapleton of the potential risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome. However, it was determined that Stapleton would not have acted upon such a warning and continued with his duties as he had done previously. Consequently, the employer was not held liable for Stapleton's injury. The court emphasised the importance of an employer's duty to provide adequate warnings and information regarding workplace hazards, but also noted that this obligation is contingent upon the reasonable response of the employee to such warnings.

The final orders of the court were that the employer was not liable for the plaintiff's injury. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, as it was determined that the employer had fulfilled its duty to warn, but the plaintiff would not have reasonably acted upon such a warning to avoid the injury.

Orders