Negligence—Master and servant—Liability of master for injury to servant—Safe system of work—Scope of duty to provide—Evidence.
Decisions
May 11. The following written judgments were delivered: - MCTIERNAN J. I agree with the judgment of Windeyer J. and with his reasons. (at p317)
KITTO J. I agree in the judgment to be delivered by Windeyer J. and have nothing to add. (at p317)
TAYLOR J. I have had the opportunity of considering the reasons prepared by Windeyer J. in this case and I agree with his observations and conclusions. Accordingly I would dismiss the appeal. (at p317)
WINDEYER J. This is an appeal from a judgement of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which set aside a verdict found for the plaintiff in an action at nisi prius. By a majority (Sugerman and Manning JJ.) that Court ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant. Brereton J. dissented. He considered that there should be a new trial. (at p317)
2. The appellant, whom it will be convenient to call the plaintiff, was employed by the respondent company, the defendant, a brewer. The plaintiff's task was to take bottles of beer out of baskets in which they had been when in a pasteurizer and place them on a conveyor belt for movement to another part of the brewery. As a result of the temperature to which bottles and their contents were subjected in the pasteurizer some bottles burst. It is said that about one in two hundred did do. That was a significant number, as some five hundred and fifty dozen bottles went through the pasteurizer in an hour. In the course of his duties the plaintiff had to pick up pieces of glass, the debris of broken bottles. Sometimes a bottle burst in his hand or immediately after he had set it down. There was then a danger of his being hit by splinters of glass. He was given gloves to protect his hands, and goggles to protect his eyes. Similar equipment was provided for other persons working elsewhere in the bottling department. The gloves were of good quality leather. They gave a considerable measure of protection against cuts by broken glass, although they were not impenetrable. Men were occasionally cut on the hand through the gloves; and, according to the plaintiff's evidence, he and others sometimes received cuts on other parts of the body. Although the plaintiff's task was not free from risks, it appears that the chance of anything other than a superficial injury occuring to the hand of a man wearing gloves was not great. However that may be, the plaintiff suffered a somewhat deep cut on the back of his right hand when a bottle burst. He was away from work for a period. He returned to work; but later he developed some psychological disorder caused by, or associated with, the physical…
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 Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd [1964] HCA 29
Case
[1964] HCA 29
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Vozza, had been injured in an accident while working for the respondent, Tooth & Co Ltd. Vozza alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Tooth & Co Ltd, his employer.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Tooth & Co Ltd was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee, a Mr. Davies, whose actions allegedly caused the accident. Specifically, the court had to determine if Mr. Davies was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, and if his conduct constituted negligence that rendered his employer liable.
The High Court considered the principles of vicarious liability, particularly in the context of an employer's responsibility for the actions of its employees. The court examined the nature of Mr. Davies' duties and whether his actions, which led to Vozza's injury, were so connected with or incidental to his employment that they could be attributed to the employer. The judges applied established legal tests to ascertain whether the employer had the right to control the manner in which Mr. Davies performed his work, and whether the act causing the injury was a wrongful mode of doing something authorised by the employer, or something entirely outside the scope of employment.
The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that Tooth & Co Ltd was vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr. Davies. The court held that Mr. Davies' actions, though perhaps negligent, were undertaken in the course of his employment, and therefore the employer was responsible for the resulting injury to Vozza.