DAJAK V. THIESS BROS. PTY. LTD.

DAJAK V. THIESS BROS. PTY. LTD.

Given the appellant's experience and the slightness of the risk, the respondent was not required to warn against or forbid the use of a sledge hammer, nor provide goggles, as such precautions were not reasonable in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Dajak; Respondent: Thiess Bros. Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1970
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety
Tort Employment Law Negligence Duty of Care Employer's Liability Workplace Safety

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dajak

Appellant

Thiess Bros. Pty. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was negligent in failing to warn the appellant of the dangers of using a sledge hammer or in failing to provide protective goggles.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the appellant's experience and the slightness of the risk, the respondent was not required to warn against or forbid the use of a sledge hammer, nor provide goggles, as such precautions were not reasonable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.