Townsend v BBC Hardware Ltd - [2003] QSC 15

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Townsend v BBC Hardware Ltd [2003] QSC 015

PARTIES:

DOUGLAS VICTOR TOWNSEND
(plaintiff)

v

BBC HARDWARE LTD ACN 000 003 378
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 320 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

28, 29 January 2003

JUDGE:

Ambrose J

ORDER:

I give judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $341,450.00 and costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – claim by subcontractor for negligence, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract for injuries suffered while working near a defective radial arm circular saw

Evidence Act 1997 (Qld), s 4, s 48
Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld), s 123, s 123(1)(b), s 124(1)
Workplace Relations Act 1997 (Qld), s 125, s 125(1)(b), s 126(1)(e)
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 9(1), s 12, s 14(1), s 30, s 30(1)(b), s 31

Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1, considered
O’Brien v T F Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2002] 1 QdR 622, considered
Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] 1 QdR 518, applied

COUNSEL:

C A White for the plaintiff
A J Moon for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Roberts Nehmer McKee for the plaintiff
Quinlan Miller Treston for the defendant

AMBROSE J: On 14 April 1997 the plaintiff was working in a large shed owned, occupied and controlled by the defendant near a radial arm docking saw and bench, also owned by the defendant when the circular saw blade then in operation moved from a stationary position behind the saw bench on which the plaintiff’s left hand was resting and across the bench and caused serious injury to that hand. The radial arm docking saw machine had serious defects. It lacked any guard to prevent the circular saw blade from coming into contact with any body part of an operator while in operation (or even while not in operation for that matter). The docking saw also lacked a retrieving device to ensure that at times when it was not being manually pulled forward across the saw bench by its operator it automatically remained at or returned to its resting place behind a fence on the saw bench against which timber to be cut by the saw rested as it was being cut.

There is no doubt on the expert evidence that the radial arm docking saw device was dangerously defective by reason of the absence of both an automatic retrieving device to keep it in place behind the saw bench when not in use actually cutting timber and any proper guard to prevent the circular saw coming in contact with any part of the body of an operator using the saw.

I accept the evidence of the plaintiff as to the events leading to his injury. At that time he was in the process of adjusting components of the long saw bench…

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 Townsend v BBC Hardware Ltd

Details

AGLC: Townsend v BBC Hardware Ltd [2003] QSC 15
Case: [2003] QSC 15
Decision Date: 6 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Townsend, initiated legal proceedings against BBC Hardware Ltd, a company involved in the manufacturing and supply of hardware products, following injuries sustained during a work-related incident. The incident occurred when Townsend, a subcontractor, was working near a radial arm circular saw provided by BBC Hardware Ltd, which had a defective guard. Townsend alleged that the defect caused him to suffer injuries. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Townsend sought damages for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and breach of contract. The court was tasked with determining whether BBC Hardware Ltd was liable for the injuries due to a failure to ensure the safety of the equipment provided, and if so, the extent of the damages owed.

The central legal issues revolved around the liability of BBC Hardware Ltd for the injuries sustained by Townsend. The court had to assess whether BBC Hardware Ltd breached its duty of care by providing equipment with a known defect, and whether this breach directly caused the injuries. Additionally, the court needed to determine if BBC Hardware Ltd had failed to comply with statutory obligations regarding the safety of equipment. The breach of contract claim was also scrutinized to ascertain if there were any contractual terms that BBC Hardware Ltd had failed to adhere to, thereby contributing to the incident.

The court found that BBC Hardware Ltd was indeed liable for the injuries. The defective guard of the saw was a direct cause of the incident, and BBC Hardware Ltd's failure to rectify this defect constituted a breach of their duty of care. The court also held that BBC Hardware Ltd was in breach of statutory duties under occupational health and safety legislation, which mandated the provision of safe equipment. The breach of contract claim was upheld as BBC Hardware Ltd had failed to provide equipment that met the agreed safety standards. The court awarded damages to Townsend, taking into account the extent of his injuries, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.

In summary, the court granted judgment in favour of Townsend, awarding him $341,450.00 in damages. The court ordered that costs be assessed on the standard basis. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring equipment safety and compliance with statutory obligations to prevent such incidents in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

I give judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $341,450.00 and costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Townsend v BBC Hardware Ltd [2003] QSC 015
PARTIES:	DOUGLAS VICTOR TOWNSEND (plaintiff) v BBC HARDWARE LTD ACN 000 003 378 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 320 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	6 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	28, 29 January 2003
JUDGE:	Ambrose J
ORDER:	I give judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $341,450.00 and costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – claim by subcontractor for negligence, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract for injuries suffered while working near a defective radial arm circular saw Evidence Act 1997 (Qld), s 4, s 48 Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld), s 123, s 123(1)(b), s 124(1) Workplace Relations Act 1997 (Qld), s 125, s 125(1)(b), s 126(1)(e) Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 9(1), s 12, s 14(1), s 30, s 30(1)(b), s 31 Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1, considered O’Brien v T F Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2002] 1 QdR 622, considered Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] 1 QdR 518, applied
COUNSEL:	C A White for the plaintiff A J Moon for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Roberts Nehmer McKee for the plaintiff Quinlan Miller Treston for the defendant