Stanley v Advantage Personnel Pty Limited & Anor [2003] NSWSC 911

Stanley v Advantage Personnel Pty Limited & Anor [2003] NSWSC 911

The plaintiff's fall was caused by the provision of an unsuitable ladder as a working platform, the uneven and improperly maintained floor surface in the spray booth, and the second defendant's unsafe system and equipment. The first defendant, as employer, breached its non-delegable duty by failing to inspect or ensure a safe workplace. The second defendant was negligent and breached s 34(a) of the Factory, Shops and Industries Act, 1962 because the paint build-up on the floor had persisted for months and contributed to the ladder's instability. Section 40(1) was not engaged. The plaintiff's act of pulling on the hose was not shown to be a failure to take reasonable care for his own...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Common Law Personal Injury Claim for Damages in Negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty, With Cross Claim for Contribution / Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Damages
Outcome
Both defendants found negligent; plaintiff not contributorily negligent; liability apportioned 25 percent to the first defendant and 75 percent to the second defendant; damages assessed separately against each defendant; matter listed for short minutes on appropriate judgments and consequential orders.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'labour Hire Employer Non Delegable Duty' 'apportionment of Liability' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'employment' 'workers Compensation'] ['negligence' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'labour Hire Employer Non Delegable Duty' 'apportionment of Liability' '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

Common Law Personal Injury Claim for Damages in Negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty, With Cross Claim for Contribution / Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant employer was negligent in failing to take reasonable care for the plaintiff's safety at the second defendant's premises." 'Whether the second defendant occupier/workplace operator was negligent in providing the system of work, equipment and workplace.' 'Whether the second defendant breached statutory duty under ss 34(a) and 40(1) of the Factory, Shops and Industries Act, 1962.' 'Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by pulling on the hose while on the ladder.' 'How liability should be apportioned between the first and second defendants.' 'What damages should be assessed against each defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's fall was caused by the provision of an unsuitable ladder as a working platform, the uneven and improperly maintained floor surface in the spray booth, and the second defendant's unsafe system and equipment. The first defendant, as employer, breached its non-delegable duty by failing to inspect or ensure a safe workplace. The second defendant was negligent and breached s 34(a) of the Factory, Shops and Industries Act, 1962 because the paint build-up on the floor had persisted for months and contributed to the ladder's instability. Section 40(1) was not engaged. The plaintiff's act of pulling on the hose was not shown to be a failure to take reasonable care for his own...

Court Disposition

Both defendants found negligent; plaintiff not contributorily negligent; liability apportioned 25 percent to the first defendant and 75 percent to the second defendant; damages assessed separately against each defendant; matter listed for short minutes on appropriate judgments and consequential orders.

Orders

  • ['I find the first defendant to have been negligent.' 'I find the second defendant to have been negligent.' 'I do not find the plaintiff to have been guilty of contributory negligence.' 'I apportion twenty-five percent of the liability for the damage suffered by the plaintiff to the first defendant and seventy-five...