Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Deane, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed on the issues whether the trial judge erred in finding that the injury to the appellant was reasonably foreseeable and whether the trial judge erred in finding that proper supervision of the coders would have made the risk of injury to the appellant minimal. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal to determine the outstanding issues. Liberty to the appellant to apply within fourteen days of this order with respect to the costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal. In the absence of further order by this Court, the costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal to date to be dealt with by that Court on the further hearing in that Court.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Nov. 15 Mason C.J.

I agree with the judgment of McHugh J.

Deane J.

I agree with the judgment of McHugh J.

Dawson J.

I agree with McHugh J.

Gaudron J.

I agree with the judgment of McHugh J.

McHugh J.

The question in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of New South Wales was correct in holding that the trial judge (Mathews J.) had erred in finding that the defendant was negligent in not adequately supervising the work of the plaintiff who was employed by the defendant as a mail officer coder with Australia Post.

The nature of the plaintiff's employment

The plaintiff commenced employment with the defendant as a coder in May 1974. She was employed in that position until 1979. Her duties required her, while sitting on a chair, to operate a coding machine by means of a keyboard. The chair was made of metal with a padded vinyl or plastic seat and backrest. It had a left-sided armrest, but did not have a right armrest. The machine was about 1,800 mm high and 900 mm wide, with a well for the operator's legs, into which a footrest could be placed. The machine had a centrally located window, divided horizontally, at the eye level of a seated operator. Letters were brought to the machine by a conveyor belt. Each letter appeared in the upper half of the window and then fell into the lower half where it was coded by the operator. The keyboard stood on a stand about 340 mm to the right of the centre line of the coding machine. Its height could be adjusted by about 70 mm; it could be rotated through 360 degrees. But the angle of the keying panel, which stood at 20 degrees to the horizontal, could not be altered. The operator depressed the keys of the keyboard to register either the numeric postcode on the letter or an alphabetical code which the operator deduced by studying the address. The keyboard, which Mathews J. said had nineteen keys, was for use by the right hand only. All alphabetical coding was effected by pressing two keys simultaneously. Using the keyboard required more skill than that normally required in using a typewriter. The operators were trained to perform 10,000 key strokes per hour, but they worked at their own speed. Each machine was adjusted so that no letter would drop into the window until the previous one had been coded. There was evidence that the average coding rate was about 1,000 to 1,100 letters per hour. Each letter required about five key strokes. A central electronic memory unit translated the keyed code into a combination of bar and dot impressions which were printed in a luminescent material on the back of the envelope. After a letter was coded, it was automatically deposited onto the conveyor belt running under the particular machine.