Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Macura [2005] NSWCA 386

Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Macura [2005] NSWCA 386

Samsung did not owe Mr Macura a duty of care analogous to an employer's non-delegable duty because it did not allocate tasks, train workers, supervise occupational health and safety, or exercise daily control over the Skilled Engineering workmen; its involvement was limited to determining daily work volumes and agreeing on any additional workers. Nor did a Stevens-type duty arise because there was no need for Samsung to co-ordinate various interdependent activities. The trial judge therefore erred in finding a duty of care.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence Duty of Care Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Verdict and Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Verdict and judgment for Mr Macura set aside and in lieu verdict and judgment for Samsung.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'non Delegable Duty of Care' 'host Employer or Occupier Liability' 'safe System of Work' 'contributory Negligence']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['duty of Care' 'non Delegable Duty of Care' 'host Employer or Occupier Liability' 'safe System of Work' 'contributory Negligence']

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

Torts Negligence Duty of Care Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Verdict and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Samsung owed Mr Macura a duty of care analogous to the non-delegable duty owed by an employer to an employee.' 'Whether Samsung owed Mr Macura a duty of care of the type described in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmiling Co Pty Ltd (1985-1986) 160 CLR 16.' "Whether the trial judge erred in finding sufficient control by Samsung over Mr Macura's work."]

Ratio Decidendi

Samsung did not owe Mr Macura a duty of care analogous to an employer's non-delegable duty because it did not allocate tasks, train workers, supervise occupational health and safety, or exercise daily control over the Skilled Engineering workmen; its involvement was limited to determining daily work volumes and agreeing on any additional workers. Nor did a Stevens-type duty arise because there was no need for Samsung to co-ordinate various interdependent activities. The trial judge therefore erred in finding a duty of care.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Verdict and judgment for Mr Macura set aside and in lieu verdict and judgment for Samsung.

Orders

  • ['Subject to filing a notice of appeal, grant Samsung leave to appeal.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Verdict and judgement for Mr Macura set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, verdict and judgment for Samsung.' 'Mr Macura to give restitution of any moneys paid by Samsung in respect of the verdict and judgment together with interest...