STRIZU v UNITED RUBBER (AUST) PTY LTD [1998] NSWCA 221

STRIZU v UNITED RUBBER (AUST) PTY LTD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, PRIESTLEY JA and ROLFE AJA 7 April 1998, 7 April 1998 [1998] NSWCA 221

NEGLIGENCE — SYSTEM OF WORK — EVIDENCE — Employee suffers back injury — sues employer — alleged misdirection as to duty of care — alleged wrongful rejection of evidence — HELD — no material misdirection — evidence properly rejected.

Gleeson CJ The appellant brought an action in the District Court against the respondent for damages for personal injury arising out of alleged negligence on the part of the respondent in its capacity as the appellant's employer.

The action came for trial before his Honour Judge Mahoney and a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The appellant appeals on two grounds, the first complaining of alleged misdirections by the trial judge to the jury, and the second complaining of alleged wrongful rejection of evidence.

The facts of the case can be stated sufficiently for the purposes of considering those two grounds of appeal in the following manner, which is taken substantially from the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant was engaged to work for the respondent which manufactured rubber mouldings. The appellant operated two rubber moulding presses. He made rubber rings. There were two mould sets in each press, giving a total of four. Each mould set contained two layers comprising three mould dies, one at the top, one in the middle and one at the bottom. Each set produced ten rings at a time. Forty rings were produced for each completed cycle of both machines.

The two top dies in each mould set were hinged at the rear and had handles at the front. The method of work which the appellant was required to undertake involved raising the top die, removing the completed rubber rings from the top of the middle die; raising the middle die; removing rubber from the bottom die; placing new rubber in the bottom die; closing the middle die; placing rubber in the top of the middle die and lowering the top die. Thus the appellant had to lift or lower the hinged dies four times in each operation of raising and lowering.