Hill & Anor v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291

Hill & Anor v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291

The finding that the respondent slipped and fell on the stairs was open on the evidence and was not displaced on appeal. Although the shearing shed complied with the WorkCover guide and relevant standards, the foreseeable and not insignificant risk created by the pace of shearing work, repeated use of the stairs and likely contamination of footwear meant reasonable care required a non-slip strip at the top of the stairs. However, the employer's responsibility was as obvious as that of the appellants, and because a non-slip strip would likely have been installed if requested, the trial judge's two-thirds to one-third apportionment was erroneous and a 50:50 apportionment was required,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Negligence Appeal Concerning Workplace Injury in a Shearing Shed and Apportionment Under S 151 Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 / Appeal From Richards V Hill & Hill [2010] NSWSC 949
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['workplace Injury' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'slip and Fall on Stairs' 'civil Liability Act 2002 S 5 B' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S 151 Z' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']
['negligence' 'occupiers Liability' 'workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['workplace Injury' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'slip and Fall on Stairs' 'civil Liability Act 2002 S 5 B' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S 151 Z' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']

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

Negligence Appeal Concerning Workplace Injury in a Shearing Shed and Apportionment Under S 151 Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 / Appeal From Richards V Hill & Hill [2010] NSWSC 949

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was injured by slipping and falling while descending stairs from the shearing board.' 'Whether the appellants breached their duty of care as occupiers by failing to provide a non-slip strip at the top of the stairs.' "Whether the trial judge's apportionment of responsibility between the appellants and the respondent's employer for the purposes of s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 was erroneous."]

Ratio Decidendi

The finding that the respondent slipped and fell on the stairs was open on the evidence and was not displaced on appeal. Although the shearing shed complied with the WorkCover guide and relevant standards, the foreseeable and not insignificant risk created by the pace of shearing work, repeated use of the stairs and likely contamination of footwear meant reasonable care required a non-slip strip at the top of the stairs. However, the employer's responsibility was as obvious as that of the appellants, and because a non-slip strip would likely have been installed if requested, the trial judge's two-thirds to one-third apportionment was erroneous and a 50:50 apportionment was required,...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Set aside the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $462,508 and in lieu thereof verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $346,881.' 'No order as to costs.']