Progress & Properties Ltd v Craft [1976] HCA 59

Progress & Properties Ltd v Craft [1976] HCA 59

By majority, the respondent's negligence claim was not barred by illegality because the negligent act complained of was the operator's failure to control the hoist, not the illegal permission to ride on it, and the same standard of care applied whether riding on the hoist was lawful or not. There was evidence that the operator acted within the scope of employment, and voluntary assumption of risk was not open on the evidence. Regulation 139(7) created a private right of action for persons injured by its breach, the respondent was within the protected class, a person could be part of the hoist's load, and the operator's failure to apply the brake so that the hoist descended by gravity at...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Cross-appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'vicarious Liability' 'scope of Employment' 'illegality' 'voluntary Assumption of Risk' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'workplace Hoist Regulations' 'excessive Damages' 'jury Verdicts']
['torts' 'employment and Workplace Safety' 'civil Procedure'] ['negligence' 'vicarious Liability' 'scope of Employment' 'illegality' 'voluntary Assumption of Risk' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'workplace Hoist Regulations' 'excessive Damages' 'jury Verdicts']

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

Personal Injury Negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's participation in riding on the hoist in breach of reg. 139(25) barred his negligence claim by illegality." 'Whether the hoist operator was acting within the scope of his employment when permitting the respondent to ride on and operating the hoist.' 'Whether voluntary assumption of risk should have been left to the jury.' 'Whether breach of reg. 139(7) gave the respondent a private right of action and whether the uncontrolled descent of the hoist amounted to lowering a load at more than 600 feet per minute.' "Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the jury's damages verdict as excessive."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the respondent's negligence claim was not barred by illegality because the negligent act complained of was the operator's failure to control the hoist, not the illegal permission to ride on it, and the same standard of care applied whether riding on the hoist was lawful or not. There was evidence that the operator acted within the scope of employment, and voluntary assumption of risk was not open on the evidence. Regulation 139(7) created a private right of action for persons injured by its breach, the respondent was within the protected class, a person could be part of the hoist's load, and the operator's failure to apply the brake so that the hoist descended by gravity at...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Cross-appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal Division), in so far as it allowed the appeal on damages to that Court and directed the entry of a verdict and judgment in the sum of $115,359, set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, order that that appeal be dismissed with costs.' 'Order that a verdict and...