Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd v Buckley [1952] HCA 72

Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd v Buckley [1952] HCA 72

It was open to the jury, on the evidence, to find that the machine was not 'dangerous' within the meaning of s. 33 of the Factories and Shops Act 1912-1950 (NSW), and thus the verdict for the defendant company should not have been set aside as unreasonable by the Full Court. The statutory requirement is to fence...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
["employer's Liability" 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'dangerous Machinery' 'factories Legislation' 'jury Verdicts' 'fencing Machinery']
['employment Law' 'statutory Duty' 'workplace Health and Safety'] ["employer's Liability" 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'dangerous Machinery' 'factories Legislation' 'jury Verdicts' 'fencing Machinery']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the rubber mill operated by Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd was 'dangerous' within the meaning of s. 33 of the Factories and Shops Act 1912-1950 (NSW) thereby requiring fencing." 'Whether the verdict of the jury that the machine was not dangerous was unreasonable and should have been set aside.' 'If a safety cord in lieu of fencing could satisfy the statutory duty.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury, on the evidence, to find that the machine was not 'dangerous' within the meaning of s. 33 of the Factories and Shops Act 1912-1950 (NSW), and thus the verdict for the defendant company should not have been set aside as unreasonable by the Full Court. The statutory requirement is to fence dangerous parts, but whether a part is dangerous is a factual question for the jury. The evidence of previous accidents was not so definite or compelling as to require a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged.' 'Appeal to the Full Court dismissed with costs.' 'Verdict and judgment for the defendant company restored.']