Treeve v Blue Star Line (Australia) Pty Ltd - [1957] HCA 20

BLUE STAR LINE (AUSTRALIA) PRO-

PRIETARY LIMITED

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Negligence - Dangerous premises - Ship - Repairs Workman - Invitee

Unusual danger - Personal injuries Occupier Knowledge of danger Evidence - Parties. SYDNEY, Mar. 28, 29;

The plaintiff was employed by a firm of ships-carpentering contractors which April 5.

undertook to repair damage in a ship's hold as it lay at berth. While pro- ceeding to go down into the hold by a booby hatch the plaintiff fell. His case was that he grasped at a piece of metal, which he described as a stanchion, for support and that the stanchion not having been pinned gave way. The plaintiff complained that this was the cause of his fall and of the personal injuries he sustained. He brought an action for damages not against the shipowners but against the defendant company and did SO upon the basis that it was the occupier of the ship and he its invitee thereon. The ship was owned by an English company and the defendant was an Australian company bearing a similar name with the word (Australia) added. It acted in various Australian ports as stevedores, and as ship's agents, being remunerated by agency fees consisting of a percentage commission on the freight and earnings attributed to those ports. The ship's master had written from another port to an officer of the defendant company, the marine superintendent, describing the repairs to be done, and the marine superintendent had instructed the firm employing the defendant to do the work in the hold. Although the marine superintend- ent had inspected work done on the ship, the work was being carried out under the supervision of the ship's chief officer. The account for the work was made out to the captain and owners" the defendant company paid the charge and debited the amount in the general account for the ship sent to the owners, the English company. The evidence was definite that no such

97 CLR 411

stanchion existed as the plaintiff described but it was suggested that what he grasped might have been a bar stuck in a heap of pig iron.

Held: that on the evidence there was no room for holding that the defend- ant company was an occupier of or in control of the ship or any part of it as premises SO as to fall under a duty of care of the safety of the plaintiff as an

Held, further, that as the verdict in the plaintiff's favour might be based on the suggestion as to the bar sticking in the pig iron the verdict could not stand and in any event there did not seem to be any satisfactory evidence of negligence.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Treeve V. Blue Star Line (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. (1957) S.R. (N.S.W.) 264 73 W.N. 664,

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

In an…

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 Treeve v Blue Star Line (Australia) 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: [1957] HCA 20
Decision Date: 5 April 1957

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, William Henry Treeve, a carpenter employed by a contracting firm, sued the respondent, Blue Star Line (Australia) Pty Ltd, for damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell into a ship's hold. Treeve alleged that he fell because a metal bar, described as a stanchion, which he grasped for support while descending into the hold, gave way as it was not properly secured. He claimed the respondent was the occupier of the ship and he was an invitee, and that the respondent was negligent in failing to warn him of an unusual danger. The Supreme Court of New South Wales had set aside a jury verdict in favour of the appellant and entered a verdict for the respondent.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent company was an occupier of or in control of the ship, or any part of it, such that it owed a duty of care to the appellant as an invitee. The court also considered whether there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the respondent, particularly in relation to the alleged unsecured stanchion or an alternative suggestion of a bar protruding from a pile of pig iron.

The court held that, on the evidence, there was no basis to conclude that the respondent company was an occupier of or in control of the ship or any part of it. The respondent acted as a ship's agent and stevedore, and while its marine superintendent instructed the contracting firm to perform repairs and inspected the work, ultimate control and possession of the vessel remained with the shipowner. The court found that the respondent's involvement did not extend to the degree of possession or control required to establish it as an occupier under the principles of occupiers' liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the jury's verdict might have been based on the speculative suggestion of a bar protruding from pig iron, which was not part of the case as presented by the plaintiff or met by the defendant. The court also found a lack of satisfactory evidence of negligence in any event.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to set aside the jury's verdict and enter a verdict for the respondent.

Orders