LIFGREN V. WALKERS LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

_. WALKERS LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT {

i Judgment delivered at—Sydney. : on Friday, 12th August 1960. | ;

WM, Houston, Gort. Print, Melb,

LIFGREN ve

Wi S_ LIMITE)

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

LIFGREN

WALKERS LTD.

JUDGMENT DIXON C.J.

LIFGREN

ve

WALKERS LTD.

JUDGMENT DIXON C.J.

This appeal raises a question of fact which only the judge at the trial could satisfactorily resolve, The true issue was whether employers, through their foreman, had directed or pursued a safe method of performing a piece of work fulfilling the duty of due care to avoid injury to the employees. It involved the turning on its side of what is called a column constructed as a support for roofing. The column consisted of a piece of steel, intended to be vertical when the column would be placed in position, with another piece of steel operating as a support running down from the top at an acute angle with the main or vertical piece and strutted or laced with it. The column was lying horizontally on blocks on the ground with the angled leg up and it was to be turned over flat. To do this a mobile crane was used to the fall of which a chain was attached; the other end of the chain ended in an open-mouthed hook, That end was passed round the uppermost leg with a view of lifting the column slightly in a way which meant that when let down it would assume a flat position, that is, on its side, The plaintiff was a member of a gang of riggers and when the column was lifted he came forward to the ~ foot or heavier end. It was considered necessary to have the chain at the centre of gravity so that the whole column would be lifted as a horizontal beam: the centre of gravity was usually found by trial and error with sufficient approximation. In fact, according to the evidence, on this occasion the chain was not attached near enough to the centre of gravity and the