Connors v Simplot Pty Limited [2001] NSWCA 205
The trial judge erred by applying the wrong standard of care, using standards relevant to occupier's liability rather than employer's liability, and failed to find that reasonable precautions—specifically the elimination of lower trays—were available and should have been taken to avoid foreseeable injury. There was a breach of duty, and the evidence established the appellant's injury was work-related.
- Parties
- Appellant: Terrence James Connors; Respondent: Simplot Australia Pty Limited t/as Herbert Adams Bakeries
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 June 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Employer and Employee, Duty of Care, Safe System of Work, Breach of Duty, Causation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Terrence James Connors
Appellant
Simplot Australia Pty Limited t/as Herbert Adams Bakeries
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent breached its duty of care owed to the appellant as an employer
- 2 Whether the injury was caused by a work incident
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred by applying the wrong standard of care, using standards relevant to occupier's liability rather than employer's liability, and failed to find that reasonable precautions—specifically the elimination of lower trays—were available and should have been taken to avoid foreseeable injury. There was a breach of duty, and the evidence established the appellant's injury was work-related.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Verdict and judgment of the trial judge set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment