Andrew Goodman v Impact Hire Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [2009] NSWSC 868

Andrew Goodman v Impact Hire Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [2009] NSWSC 868

Impact breached its employer's duty by failing to devise and implement a safe system for setting up a 1,500 kilogram trailer near a busy expressway, including requiring deployment of all four stabilising legs before disconnection and no reliance on the handbrake. Inasmuch breached its duty because the trailer as delivered was dangerous: the handbrake was not functional with normal human effort and its presence misleadingly encouraged reliance on it without warning against use on sloping ground or disconnection before stabilising legs were deployed. Those breaches caused Mr Goodman's injury when he instinctively restrained the rolling trailer, and contributory negligence was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim Arising From Workplace Injury, Including Workers Compensation Act Claim Against Employer and Civil Liability Act Claim Against Manufacturer / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Damages
Outcome
Negligence established against Impact and Inasmuch; contributory negligence not established; liability apportioned 50% to Impact and 50% to Inasmuch; damages assessed against Impact at $800,667 and against Inasmuch at $1,384,176, subject to adjustments under s 151 Z of the Workers Compensation Act.
Legal Topics
["employer's Duty of Care" 'non Delegable Duty' 'safe System of Work' "manufacturer's Duty to Warn" 'defective Equipment' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'obvious Risk' 'apportionment' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' 'workers Compensation' 'personal Injury' 'motor Accidents'] ["employer's Duty of Care" 'non Delegable Duty' 'safe System of Work' "manufacturer's Duty to Warn" 'defective Equipment' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'obvious Risk' 'apportionment' 'assessment 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

Personal Injury Negligence Claim Arising From Workplace Injury, Including Workers Compensation Act Claim Against Employer and Civil Liability Act Claim Against Manufacturer / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Impact breached its duty to provide a safe system of work for positioning and disconnecting the variable message sign trailer.' 'Whether Inasmuch breached its duty by supplying a trailer with a handbrake system that was misleading or ineffective and by failing to warn of its limitations.' "Whether any breach by Impact or Inasmuch caused Mr Goodman's injury." 'Whether Mr Goodman was contributorily negligent.' 'How liability should be apportioned between Impact and Inasmuch under s 151 Z of the Workers Compensation Act.' 'What damages should be assessed against Impact under the Workers Compensation Act and against Inasmuch under the Civil Liability Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

Impact breached its employer's duty by failing to devise and implement a safe system for setting up a 1,500 kilogram trailer near a busy expressway, including requiring deployment of all four stabilising legs before disconnection and no reliance on the handbrake. Inasmuch breached its duty because the trailer as delivered was dangerous: the handbrake was not functional with normal human effort and its presence misleadingly encouraged reliance on it without warning against use on sloping ground or disconnection before stabilising legs were deployed. Those breaches caused Mr Goodman's injury when he instinctively restrained the rolling trailer, and contributory negligence was not...

Court Disposition

Negligence established against Impact and Inasmuch; contributory negligence not established; liability apportioned 50% to Impact and 50% to Inasmuch; damages assessed against Impact at $800,667 and against Inasmuch at $1,384,176, subject to adjustments under s 151 Z of the Workers Compensation Act.

Orders

  • ['On the third day of the hearing, consent orders were made on the basis that there was no accident within the Motor Accidents Compensation Act and the Nominal Defendant was excused from further attendance.' 'Damages against Impact assessed in the sum of $800,667.' 'Damages against Inasmuch assessed in the sum of...