SYDNEY OLYMPIC SPORTING CLUB LIMITED v. KARAMIDAS [2000] NSWCA 268

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : SYDNEY OLYMPIC SPORTING CLUB LIMITED v. KARAMIDAS [2000] NSWCA 268 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40285/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 27/09/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 27 September 2000

PARTIES : SYDNEY OLYMPIC SPORTING CLUB LIMITED (Appellant) JIM KARAMIDAS (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1, 37; Powell JA at 2; Heydon JA at 42

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 5830/97 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Balla A-DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : A.D.M. Hewitt SC/P.R. Stockley (Appellant) M.J. Williams QC/D.R.J. Toomey (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Curwood & Partners (Appellant) McCrohon Bergserg (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - Master and servant - Duty of care - Safe system of work - Employer's duty to provide - Scope of duty - Contributory negligence D DECISION : Appeal dismissed

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40285/99 DC 5830/97

HANDLEY JA POWELL JA HEYDON JA

27 September 2000

SYDNEY OLYMPIC SPORTING CLUB LIMITED v. KARADIMAS

JUDGMENT 1 HANDLEY JA: I will ask Powell JA to give the first judgment. 2 POWELL JA: This is an appeal by an unsuccessful Defendant from a verdict found, and judgment entered, by Balla A-DCJ in the District Court on 26 March 1999. 3 In the proceedings at first instance the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a barman/cellarman, sought to recover damages for injuries suffered by him on 22 September 1994 when, in the course of his employment, he sought to move a 50 litre beer keg which he thought to be empty, but which was, in fact full. 4 The Plaintiff's case was that he sustained those injuries because of the Defendant's negligence. So far as is relevant, the Statement of Claim contained the following paragraphs (RAB 3): "5 The said accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendants it's (sic) servants or agents. Particulars of negligence (a Permitting the keg to remain on the floor of the cellar without a plastic tag which would indicate that that keg was full of beer. The Defendant knew or ought to have known that without a tag, persons in a situation such as the Plaintiff would have presumed the keg to have been empty and capable of being lifted without risk of injury.