Castillo v Presmist Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 6

Castillo v Presmist Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 6

The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide appropriate manual assistance, adequate lighting, and supervision during hazardous formwork tasks, failing to heed requests, which was a factual cause of the plaintiff's injury. The risk was foreseeable, not insignificant, and precautions could have reasonably been taken. Defence of contributory negligence and reduction pursuant to s 151Z(2) were not established on the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'contributory Negligence' 'workers Compensation' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'personal Injury' "occupiers' Liability"] ['negligence' 'contributory Negligence' 'workers Compensation' 'assessment of Damages']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Relevant risk of harm and scope/content of duty of care owed to the plaintiff' 'Whether the defendant negligently breached duty of care' 'Whether there was contributory negligence by the plaintiff' "Causation: Whether injuries, disabilities, and claimed losses were caused by defendant's negligence" 'Whether damages should be reduced by s 151Z(2) of Workers Compensation Act due to alleged employer negligence' 'Assessment of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide appropriate manual assistance, adequate lighting, and supervision during hazardous formwork tasks, failing to heed requests, which was a factual cause of the plaintiff's injury. The risk was foreseeable, not insignificant, and precautions could have reasonably been taken. Defence of contributory negligence and reduction pursuant to s 151Z(2) were not established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $138,515.06' 'The exhibits are to be returned' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless a party is able to demonstrate entitlement for another costs order" 'Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further or...