Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited & Bilfinger Berger AG [2007] NSWSC 15

Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited & Bilfinger Berger AG [2007] NSWSC 15

The defendants were negligent because they controlled and maintained the wash bay, the grid created a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of injury when wet and muddy, drivers could foreseeably wash their own wheels from the grid when no designated washers were present, and inexpensive precautions such as extending mesh or giving clear instructions would have avoided the risk. The statutory duty claim under Regulation 73(2) failed because the plaintiff was working at the place where he was injured rather than using a means of access to it. The plaintiff was 10% contributorily negligent for taking a backward step on the known muddy and slippery grid without paying particular attention....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim Alleging Negligence, Occupier's Liability and Breach of Statutory Duty / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $229,150.08; the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['construction Site Injury' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'civil Liability Act 2002 Damages' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S 151 Z Reduction']
['personal Injury' 'negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'workers Compensation' 'damages'] ['construction Site Injury' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'civil Liability Act 2002 Damages' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S 151 Z Reduction']

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 Claim Alleging Negligence, Occupier's Liability and Breach of Statutory Duty / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants breached their duty of care as occupiers of the wash bay.' 'Whether the plaintiff established breach of statutory duty under Regulation 73(2) of the Construction Safety Regulations 1950.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.' "Whether damages should be reduced under s 151Z(2)(c) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for the employer's liability." 'Assessment of damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were negligent because they controlled and maintained the wash bay, the grid created a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of injury when wet and muddy, drivers could foreseeably wash their own wheels from the grid when no designated washers were present, and inexpensive precautions such as extending mesh or giving clear instructions would have avoided the risk. The statutory duty claim under Regulation 73(2) failed because the plaintiff was working at the place where he was injured rather than using a means of access to it. The plaintiff was 10% contributorily negligent for taking a backward step on the known muddy and slippery grid without paying particular attention....

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $229,150.08; the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $229,150.08.' "The defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs."]