Coote v Forestry Tasmania [2006] HCA 26

Coote v Forestry Tasmania [2006] HCA 26

Where a forestry officer, exercising statutory power, gave a direction that the worker was not to fell pulp trees as he normally would, and that direction caused the worker to depart from safe practice and be injured, it was open to the trial judge to conclude the respondent was negligent; the Full Court erred in failing to recognise the impact of the direction, substituting an analysis that attributed injury to the worker's own error of judgment.

Parties
Appellant: Graham Coote; Respondent: Forestry Tasmania
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Workplace Safety, Contributory Negligence, Statutory Duties, Forestry Operations, Duty of Care
Tort Negligence Breach of Duty Workplace Safety Contributory Negligence Statutory Duties Forestry Operations Duty of Care

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Coote

Appellant

Forestry Tasmania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Forestry Tasmania was negligent in the directions given to the appellant regarding felling of pulp trees
  2. 2 Whether the injury to appellant was the result of his own error of judgment or the negligent directions by respondent
  3. 3 Whether the Full Court erred in finding no negligence despite accepting findings of fact by the trial judge

Ratio Decidendi

Where a forestry officer, exercising statutory power, gave a direction that the worker was not to fell pulp trees as he normally would, and that direction caused the worker to depart from safe practice and be injured, it was open to the trial judge to conclude the respondent was negligent; the Full Court erred in failing to recognise the impact of the direction, substituting an analysis that attributed injury to the worker's own error of judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania made on 23 March 2005 set aside.