Sampson v Prest & O'Connor Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 318

Sampson v Prest & O'Connor Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 318

The first defendant's changed system required employees to collect materials from the second defendant's depot without troubling the second defendant's staff and without ensuring that materials required at short notice were safely accessible. That created a foreseeable risk of injury which could reasonably have been avoided by notifying the second defendant or retaining the prior collection system. The plaintiff's injury resulted from that failure. The second defendant was not liable because it was not shown to know that the first defendant's employees had been instructed not to seek assistance, and it was entitled to expect assistance would be requested if needed. The plaintiff was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Common Law Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial on Liability, Apportionment and Damages; Counsel to Bring in Short Minutes
Outcome
Plaintiff entitled to a verdict against the first defendant; claim against the second defendant failed; no deduction for contributory negligence; cross-claims dismissed; damages assessed but quantified orders to be brought in by counsel.
Legal Topics
['foreseeable Risk of Injury' 'safe System of Work' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity or Contribution Between Defendants' 'assessment of Damages for Non Economic Loss, Economic Loss and Care Needs']
['negligence' 'personal Injury' "employer's Liability" "occupier's Liability" 'damages'] ['foreseeable Risk of Injury' 'safe System of Work' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity or Contribution Between Defendants' 'assessment of Damages for Non Economic Loss, Economic Loss and Care Needs']

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 Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial on Liability, Apportionment and Damages; Counsel to Bring in Short Minutes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant employer was negligent in requiring the plaintiff to collect materials from the second defendant's depot without ensuring safe access or assistance." 'Whether the second defendant occupier was negligent in storing the #9 pit where it was or in acceding to the changed collection system.' 'Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to remove the #9 pit instead of abandoning the task.' "Whether the plaintiff's physical condition and economic incapacity were caused by the accident." 'How damages should be quantified.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant's changed system required employees to collect materials from the second defendant's depot without troubling the second defendant's staff and without ensuring that materials required at short notice were safely accessible. That created a foreseeable risk of injury which could reasonably have been avoided by notifying the second defendant or retaining the prior collection system. The plaintiff's injury resulted from that failure. The second defendant was not liable because it was not shown to know that the first defendant's employees had been instructed not to seek assistance, and it was entitled to expect assistance would be requested if needed. The plaintiff was not...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff entitled to a verdict against the first defendant; claim against the second defendant failed; no deduction for contributory negligence; cross-claims dismissed; damages assessed but quantified orders to be brought in by counsel.

Orders

  • ['Counsel are to bring in a short minute of quantified findings and of order as to verdicts and judgments.' 'The plaintiff is entitled to a verdict against the first defendant but fails against the second defendant.' 'There is to be no deduction for contributory negligence.' 'The cross-claims will be dismissed.']