ENGLISH v ROGERS & Anor [2005] NSWCA 327

ENGLISH v ROGERS & Anor [2005] NSWCA 327

The employer breached his non-delegable duty of care because the plaintiff was required to work late at night in a poorly lit, cluttered rear yard where a robber could hide, and no reasonable instructions or safeguards were provided despite a real risk of injury. The criminal act did not break causation because it...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Negligence Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal From District Court Judgment
Outcome
As between the appellant and first respondent, the appeal was dismissed; as between the appellant and second respondent, the appeal was allowed; the cross-appeal was allowed.
Legal Topics
["employer's Non Delegable Duty of Care" 'contractor Working at Hotel' 'criminal Acts of Third Parties' 'psychiatric Injury' 'causation' 'contribution and Apportionment' 'damages' 'interest on Non Economic Loss']
['torts' 'negligence' 'employment Law' 'workers Compensation'] ["employer's Non Delegable Duty of Care" 'contractor Working at Hotel' 'criminal Acts of Third Parties' 'psychiatric Injury' 'causation' 'contribution and Apportionment' 'damages' 'interest on Non Economic Loss']

Source-derived case record

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

Negligence Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the employer breached its non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures against the risk of robbery while the plaintiff worked as a late-night cleaner.' "Whether the employer's breach caused the plaintiff's psychiatric injury despite the immediate criminal act of a third party." 'Whether the Hotel owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff in relation to the criminal acts of third parties.' "Whether the plaintiff's motor vehicle accidents were causally related to the psychiatric injury caused by the robbery." 'How damages, interest and contribution should be assessed as between the employer and the Hotel.']

Ratio Decidendi

The employer breached his non-delegable duty of care because the plaintiff was required to work late at night in a poorly lit, cluttered rear yard where a robber could hide, and no reasonable instructions or safeguards were provided despite a real risk of injury. The criminal act did not break causation because it was the very risk against which precautions were required. The Hotel also owed and breached a duty of care because of its coordinating and employer-like role, its control of access and security at the premises, and the plaintiff's special vulnerability. The motor vehicle accidents were causally related to the tort-induced psychiatric injury. Responsibility was apportioned 60% to...

Court Disposition

As between the appellant and first respondent, the appeal was dismissed; as between the appellant and second respondent, the appeal was allowed; the cross-appeal was allowed.

Orders

  • ['As between the appellant and the first respondent, the appeal is dismissed.' 'As between the appellant and the second respondent, the appeal is allowed.' 'The cross appeal is allowed.' "The appellant and second respondent are to pay the first respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal, in equal shares." "The second...