Grech v Bando Contracting P/L [2015] NSWDC 129

Grech v Bando Contracting P/L [2015] NSWDC 129

The defendant breached its non-delegable duty of care by requiring the plaintiff to perform cable-pulling work in circumstances where it was foreseeable that a cable could become stuck and that the plaintiff might exert maximal force from an awkward posture without adequate training, mechanical assistance, suitable tools or readily available assistance. Reasonable and practical precautions, including training, a lever or pulley system, access to a concrete cutter, or another worker, could have significantly reduced or avoided the risk. But for that breach, the plaintiff would not have suffered the back injury. The pleaded contributory negligence was not established because the plaintiff...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Damages for Alleged Employer Negligence Arising From a Workplace Back Injury / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $647,766 without discount for alleged contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'workplace Injury' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contributory Negligence' 'mitigation of Damages' 'economic Loss' 'superannuation Loss' 'fox V Wood']
['torts' 'workers Compensation' 'damages'] ['negligence' 'workplace Injury' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contributory Negligence' 'mitigation of Damages' 'economic Loss' 'superannuation Loss' 'fox V Wood']

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

Civil Proceedings for Damages for Alleged Employer Negligence Arising From a Workplace Back Injury / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant employer was negligent and whether such negligence caused the plaintiff's injury" 'Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff' "Assessment of the plaintiff's entitlement to damages"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached its non-delegable duty of care by requiring the plaintiff to perform cable-pulling work in circumstances where it was foreseeable that a cable could become stuck and that the plaintiff might exert maximal force from an awkward posture without adequate training, mechanical assistance, suitable tools or readily available assistance. Reasonable and practical precautions, including training, a lever or pulley system, access to a concrete cutter, or another worker, could have significantly reduced or avoided the risk. But for that breach, the plaintiff would not have suffered the back injury. The pleaded contributory negligence was not established because the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $647,766 without discount for alleged contributory negligence.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $647,766' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered" 'The exhibits may be returned' "Liberty to apply on 7 days' notice if further or other orders are required"]