Monad (Constructions) Pty Ltd v. Fernance, James Matthew [1979] FCA 74

CATCHWORDS

Negligence - employer's duty to provide a safe system of work - adequacy of employer's instructions to employees - contributory negligence - findings of trial judge -

function of appellate court.

Monad_ (Constructions) Pty. Limited v. James Matthew Fernance

R.CTN0G 4 of 1979 Coram: Smithers, Blackburn and Franki JJ.

25 July 1979

Canberra

' FRET MENEAME Tat oe ate — a

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: DATE OF ORDER:

WHERE MADE:

The Court orders that:

RCT. NoG4 of 1979

}

BETWEEN: MONAD(CONSTRUCTIONS) PLY. LIMITED

Appellant

AND: JAMES MATTHEW FERNANCE

Respondent

ORDER

Smithers, Blackburn and Franki JJ.

25 July 1979

Canberra

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

at ee --

&

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY a A.CT NoG4 of 1979

DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: MONAD (CONSTRUCTIONS) Pty, LIMITED

Appellant

AND: JAMES MATTHEW FERNANCE

Respondent

CORAM: Smithers, Blackburn and Franki JJ.

CANBERRA

25 July 1979

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory the appellant Monad (Constructions)

Pty. Limited was the first defendant to a claim for damages by the

respondent Mr, James Matthew Fernmce,. "r. Reginald Davis was the

second defendant, The respondent claimed that his employer, the

"3

appellant, had been negligent end that he hed suffered injury thereby.

The learned trial judge found that the respondent was ingured on 14 September 1972 in the manner which he described in evidence. The respondent said that he and Davis were unloeding a heavy gelvanized iron shed, the property of his employer, from the back of a truck also owned by his employer. In the course of unloading, as the respondent put it, he momentarily "copped the weight", the exact amount of which is not known, but the shed weighed atout 580 lbs. The result was the respondent suffered a serious ingury to his back. He claimed that this accident was the result of a failure by his employer to take reasonable care for his safety at work. He also sued Mr. Davis. The learned trial gudge gave judgment for the respondent against the appellant, and dismissed the respondent's claim against Mr. Davis who 1s not party to this appeal. The appellant before this Court contended that, on the evidence, the respondent's claim should have been dismissed, as no finding of negligence should have been made against the appellant. The appellant contended also that if on the evidence the finding that the respondent's inguries resulted from negligence on the part of the appellent be affirmed, there should have been a finding that the respondent was guilty of