Canny, J.M. v. John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd t/as & John Pfeiffer Constructions & Anor [1980] FCA 189

Canny, J.M. v. John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd t/as & John Pfeiffer Constructions & Anor [1980] FCA 189

The breach by the first respondent of regulation 118B.(1)(b), requiring the employment of a qualified operator for the use of explosive-powered tools, gave rise to a civil right of action and was a probable cause of the appellant’s injuries. The employer’s failure constituted both a breach of statutory duty and negligence in failing to provide a safe system of work.

Parties
Appellant: John Michael Canny; First Respondent: John Pfeiffer Pty. Limited t/as John Pfeiffer Constructions; Second Respondent: Aaro Jarvin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal as against the first respondent allowed; appeal as against the second respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Statutory Duty of Care, Industrial Accidents, Qualification Requirements for Operators, Causation, Vicarious Liability
Tort Law Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Employer's Liability Statutory Duty of Care Industrial Accidents Qualification Requirements for Operators Causation +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Michael Canny

Appellant

John Pfeiffer Pty. Limited t/as John Pfeiffer Constructions

First Respondent

Aaro Jarvin

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the breach of regulation 118B.(1)(b), requiring qualified operators for explosive-powered tools, gives rise to a civil right of action in favour of an injured employee
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's breach of the regulation or failure to provide a safe system of work was a material cause of the appellant’s injury

Ratio Decidendi

The breach by the first respondent of regulation 118B.(1)(b), requiring the employment of a qualified operator for the use of explosive-powered tools, gave rise to a civil right of action and was a probable cause of the appellant’s injuries. The employer’s failure constituted both a breach of statutory duty and negligence in failing to provide a safe system of work.

Court Disposition

Appeal as against the first respondent allowed; appeal as against the second respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant against the first respondent for $118,982.35.
  • The costs of the appellant and the second respondent, both of appeal and trial, to be taxed and paid by the first respondent.