George v Lifese Steel Erections Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWSC 1146

George v Lifese Steel Erections Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWSC 1146

Both defendants were negligent; the unsafe platform with a gap created the hazard causing the plaintiff’s fall. First defendant (employer) owed a non-delegable duty to the plaintiff, while the second defendant, having operational control, failed in inspection and maintenance. No contributory negligence proved on plaintiff’s part. Fault apportioned 25% to first defendant, 75% to second defendant; damages assessed according to relevant statutory regimes.

Parties
Plaintiff: Rabih George; First Defendant: Lifese Steel Erections Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Lifese Pty Limited t/as Lifese Engineering; Second Cross Defendant: Transfield Constructions Pty Limited; Third Cross Defendant: M. & C. Maxwell Pty Limited (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against first and second defendants; cross claim against Transfield dismissed.
Legal Topics
Industrial Accident, Employer Liability, Negligence, Apportionment of Fault, Damages Assessment, Workers' Compensation Act, Civil Liability Act
Tort Law Employment Law Workers Compensation Civil Liability Industrial Accident Employer Liability Negligence Apportionment of Fault +3 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabih George

Plaintiff

Lifese Steel Erections Pty Limited

First Defendant

Lifese Pty Limited t/as Lifese Engineering

Second Defendant

Transfield Constructions Pty Limited

Second Cross Defendant

M. & C. Maxwell Pty Limited (in liquidation)

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant and/or second defendant were negligent
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence
  3. 3 Apportionment of fault between defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants were negligent; the unsafe platform with a gap created the hazard causing the plaintiff’s fall. First defendant (employer) owed a non-delegable duty to the plaintiff, while the second defendant, having operational control, failed in inspection and maintenance. No contributory negligence proved on plaintiff’s part. Fault apportioned 25% to first defendant, 75% to second defendant; damages assessed according to relevant statutory regimes.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against first and second defendants; cross claim against Transfield dismissed.

Orders

  • First defendant found negligent
  • Second defendant found negligent