Mungis (No 2) Pty Limited v Still [2011] NSWCA 261

Mungis (No 2) Pty Limited v Still [2011] NSWCA 261

The appellant breached its duty of care because it controlled the system of work and machine P72, the risk of injury from the compartment door opening under pressure from an extended spindle was foreseeable and not insignificant, and a reasonable person in the appellant's position would have taken the simple and inexpensive precaution of installing an automatic in/out lever and would have instructed the respondent to use the emergency stop button in the event of malfunction. The respondent was contributorily negligent because a reasonable person in his position, faced with an apparent build-up of plastic and pressure behind a jammed door, should have turned the machine off before forcing...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Negligence Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal and Cross Appeal From a District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['safe System of Work' "occupier's Duty of Care to Contract Worker" 'foreseeable Risk of Harm' 'precautions Against Risk of Harm' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility']
['torts' 'negligence' 'workplace Injury' 'civil Procedure'] ['safe System of Work' "occupier's Duty of Care to Contract Worker" 'foreseeable Risk of Harm' 'precautions Against Risk of Harm' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility']

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

Negligence Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal and Cross Appeal From a District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant breached its duty of care by failing to install an automatic in/out lever on machine P72.' 'Whether the appellant breached its duty of care by failing to instruct the respondent to use the emergency stop button or otherwise turn off the machine before opening the compartment door in the event of a malfunction.' 'Whether the risk was an obvious risk for which no warning was required under s 5H of the Civil Liability Act.' 'Whether the respondent was contributorily negligent by attempting to open the compartment door without turning off the machine.' "Whether the primary Judge's apportionment of 25 percent responsibility to the respondent should be disturbed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant breached its duty of care because it controlled the system of work and machine P72, the risk of injury from the compartment door opening under pressure from an extended spindle was foreseeable and not insignificant, and a reasonable person in the appellant's position would have taken the simple and inexpensive precaution of installing an automatic in/out lever and would have instructed the respondent to use the emergency stop button in the event of malfunction. The respondent was contributorily negligent because a reasonable person in his position, faced with an apparent build-up of plastic and pressure behind a jammed door, should have turned the machine off before forcing...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Cross-appeal dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal." "The respondent (cross-appellant) pay the appellant's (cross-respondent's) costs of the cross-appeal."]