Williams v Mt Isa Mines Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

 Williams v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2001] QCA 101

PARTIES:

GREGORY LYALL WILLIAMS
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED (ACN 009 661 447)
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5660 of 2000
SC No 26 of 1997

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mount Isa

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2001

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Ambrose J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – THE CONTRACT OF SERVICE AND RIGHTS, DUTIES AND LIABILITY AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER FOR INJURY TO EMPLOYEE AT COMMON LAW – SUPERVISION AND INSTRUCTION – whether employer breached its duty of care in failing to instruct employee in the mode of egress from a vehicle used in the course of employment – whether there existed circumstances that made a specific warning or special training necessary.

Anderson v Mount Isa Basketball Association Inc [1997] Aust Tort Rep ¶81-451, distinguished
Bus v Sydney County Council (1988-89) 167 CLR 78, considered

Cross v TNT Management Pty Ltd [1987-88] 46 SASR 105, distinguished

McLean v Tedman (1983-84) 155 CLR 306, considered
Mclean's Roylen Cruises Pty Ltd v McEwan (1984) 54 ALR 3, considered
The Council of the Shire of Wyong v Shirt & Ors (1979-80) 146 CLR 40, considered
Turner v The State of South Australia (1982) 56 ALJR 839, considered
Webb v The State of South Australia (1982) 56 ALJR 912, considered

COUNSEL:

R J Douglas SC for the appellant
R A I Myers for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

V R Moffatt & Associates for the appellant
Thynne & Macartney for the respondent

1. McMURDO P: The appellant claims the learned primary judge erred in concluding that the respondent employer was not liable in damages for injuries the appellant suffered in the course of his employment on 30 October 1995.

1. The appellant worked in the respondent's parks and gardens department and was injured whilst alighting from a Toyota Dyna two-tonne truck; a compact small truck which could be lawfully driven by anyone with a passenger car licence.  The learned primary judge accepted the appellant's account of how he sustained the injury.  The appellant opened the driver's door, swung his body to the right, placed his left hand on the driver's door window sill as the window was fully open, placed his right hand on the seat, lifted his body slightly and put his left foot on the outside recessed small step which was no wider than 3¾ inches, placed some weight on the step but slipped, lost his grip on the door and fell, his body twisting to the left.

1. The respondent provided no instruction to its employees as to the safest method of alighting from such vehicles.

1. The learned primary judge noted in his reasons that the appellant's case…