Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 72
Leighton Contractors Pty Limited, as operator of the motorway with technical control of the boom gates, owed a duty of care to the appellant and breached it by unexpectedly lowering the boom gate contrary to clear instructions; the State, as employer, also breached its duty of care by failing to communicate clear instructions to Leighton regarding the closure and operation of the motorway; however, the finding of contributory negligence against the appellant was erroneous in the urgent duty context, and proper apportionment of liability between Leighton and the State was 47% and 53% respectively.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeals dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['workplace Injury' "employer's Duty of Care" 'negligence of Road Operators' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Liability']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Leighton Contractors Pty Limited owed a duty of care to the appellant in the circumstances of a police urgent duty operation on a closed motorway' 'Whether Leighton Contractors Pty Limited breached its duty of care by lowering the boom gate against planned instructions' 'Whether the State breached its duty of care as employer by failing to communicate clear instructions and adequately manage the operation with Leighton' 'Proper apportionment of liability between Leighton Contractors Pty Limited and the State' 'Whether the appellant was contributorily negligent']
Ratio Decidendi
Leighton Contractors Pty Limited, as operator of the motorway with technical control of the boom gates, owed a duty of care to the appellant and breached it by unexpectedly lowering the boom gate contrary to clear instructions; the State, as employer, also breached its duty of care by failing to communicate clear instructions to Leighton regarding the closure and operation of the motorway; however, the finding of contributory negligence against the appellant was erroneous in the urgent duty context, and proper apportionment of liability between Leighton and the State was 47% and 53% respectively.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeals dismissed.
Orders
- ['Set aside order 3 made by the trial judge on 23 April 2014.' 'Respondents to pay to the appellant 25 per cent of his costs of the appeal, such costs to be borne by the respondents in the proportions of their respective liability to the appellant.' "Leighton Contractors Pty Limited to pay the appellant's costs as...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment