Coulthurst v Miles [2020] NSWSC 599

Coulthurst v Miles [2020] NSWSC 599

The first defendant, as operator of the excavator, breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff by failing to use reasonable care and by not employing the excavator's quick release mechanism to avoid arcing movement, resulting in the beam swinging out and striking the plaintiff. The risk was foreseeable and significant, a reasonable operator would have taken precautions, and the breach was a necessary condition of the harm. There was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Negligence – Personal Injury / Liability Judgment; Damages to Be Assessed Separately
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant; proceedings against the second defendant dismissed; costs to be plaintiff’s costs in the cause; matter listed for further directions.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'civil Liability']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'civil Liability']

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 / Liability Judgment; Damages to Be Assessed Separately

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant, as plant operator, breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff' 'Whether the system of work implemented was defective or causative of the injury' 'Identification of the relevant risk of harm under s 5B Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)' 'Causation under s 5D Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant, as operator of the excavator, breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff by failing to use reasonable care and by not employing the excavator's quick release mechanism to avoid arcing movement, resulting in the beam swinging out and striking the plaintiff. The risk was foreseeable and significant, a reasonable operator would have taken precautions, and the breach was a necessary condition of the harm. There was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant; proceedings against the second defendant dismissed; costs to be plaintiff’s costs in the cause; matter listed for further directions.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant on the question of liability with damages to be assessed without reduction for contributory negligence' 'Dismiss the proceedings against the second defendant' "The costs of the proceedings to date are the plaintiff's costs in the cause" 'List the matter for...