High Court of Australia
L
. FollA WA ory Dist Lidy Daniels
73 Hu
iesv ia Deloie' Skelton:
Donaldson mpi af CHR Pol i Acer" SAU es Cio
Ss
Kes 3a
68 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA]
PIRO 3 : p 2 3 5 : : . APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF, AND W. FOSTER & COMPANY LIMITED é . RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
Statutes—Breach of statutory duty—Failure to fence dangerous machinery—Defence H, 0. ov A.
of contributory negligence—Industrial Code 1920-1936 (8.A.) (No. 1458 of 1920 —No. 2276 of 1936), s. 321.
Precedent—High Court—Australian courts generally—Decision of High Court—
Decision by House of Lords to the contrary.
Contributory negligence is a defence to an action by an employee claiming damages for personal injury caused by a breach of his employer's statutory duty to fence or safeguard dangerous machinery.
So held by the whole Court.
Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Lid., (1940) A.C. 152, and Lewis v. Denye, (1940) A.C. 921, followed. Bourke v. Butterfield & Lewis Ltd. (1926) 88 C.L.R. 354, overruled.
But held, on the facts, by Latham C.J., Starke and McTiernan JJ. (Rich and Williams JJ. dissenting), that the trial judge was not justified in finding that the employee was guilty of contributory negligence although there had been some inadvertence on his part.
Per Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan and Williams JJ.: Where there is a clear conflict between a decision of the House of Lords and a decision of the
High Court of Australia, the High Court and other courts in Australia should as a general rule follow the decision of the House of Lords upon matters of
general legal principle. Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Richards J.): Piro v. W. Foster & Co. Lid., (1943) S.A.8.R. 68, reversed.
1943. Ce
Metrourne, Sept. 30; Oct. 1; Nov. 5.
Latham Rich,
"Williams J.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate