Forrest v John Mills Himself Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 22

Forrest v John Mills Himself Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 22

Although there was no basis to disturb the trial judge's finding that the respondent was not negligent at common law, the respondent breached its statutory duty because the wall and revolving wheel were not equivalent to a secure fence for the revolving transmission shaft. That breach causally contributed to the appellant's injury, but the appellant's own carelessness also contributed, requiring apportionment of responsibility at 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in an Action for Damages for Common Law Negligence Or, Alternatively, Breach of Statutory Duty by an Employer / High Court Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; Supreme Court of Queensland judgment discharged; judgment entered for the appellant for $3,165.00 with costs.
Legal Topics
['common Law Negligence' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'guarding or Fencing of Transmission Machinery' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Damages']
['tort Law' 'employment Law' 'workplace Safety'] ['common Law Negligence' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'guarding or Fencing of Transmission Machinery' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Damages']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in an Action for Damages for Common Law Negligence Or, Alternatively, Breach of Statutory Duty by an Employer / High Court Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent employer was negligent at common law in relation to the appellant's injury from revolving machinery." 'Whether the respondent breached the statutory duty under Inspection of Machinery Acts, 1951 to 1966 Q, s. 21 (2) (a), to securely fence transmission machinery.' 'Whether the statutory duty protected employees such as the appellant.' "Whether the respondent's breach of statutory duty caused or contributed to the appellant's injury." "Whether damages should be apportioned for the appellant's contributory negligence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was no basis to disturb the trial judge's finding that the respondent was not negligent at common law, the respondent breached its statutory duty because the wall and revolving wheel were not equivalent to a secure fence for the revolving transmission shaft. That breach causally contributed to the appellant's injury, but the appellant's own carelessness also contributed, requiring apportionment of responsibility at 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; Supreme Court of Queensland judgment discharged; judgment entered for the appellant for $3,165.00 with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland discharged.' 'In lieu thereof there be judgment for the appellant for the sum of $3,165.00 with costs.']