NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Singleton Transport Industrial Service Pty Ltd v Ford [2000] NSWCA 237 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 41016/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 22 August 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 August 2000
PARTIES : Singleton Transport Industrial Service Pty Ltd - Appellant David John Ford - Respondent JUDGMENT OF : Giles JA at 1; Fitzgerald JA at 30; Foster AJA at 31
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 446/98 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Goldring DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : J D Hislop QC & W F Chipchase - Appellant J E Sexton SC & J M Hennessy - Respondent SOLICITORS : Sparke Helmore, Newcastle - Appellant Bale Boshev & Associates, Newcastle - Respondent CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - contributory negligence - damages - employee injured when chain dog unexpectedly opened - finding of worn chain dog and unsafe system of work upheld - but evidence of pre-existing condition potentially affecting earning capacity - conflict over fitness for work and loss of earning capacity - apparent error in not allowing for pre-existing condition - if not, reasoning not apparent - new trial as to damages. ND DECISION : (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Set aside verdict and judgment that the defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $404,957.15. (3) Remit the proceedings to the District Court for a new trial limited to assessment of damages. (4) Respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal but have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CA 41016/99 DC 446/98
GILES JA FITZGERALD JA FOSTER AJA Tuesday 29 August 2000 SINGLETON TRANSPORT INDUSTRIAL SERVICE PTY LTD v FORD JUDGMENT 1 GILES JA: The respondent was employed by the appellant as a crane driver. He was injured when he was struck in the face by a piece of pipe used as an extension to the handle of a chain dog when the chain dog unexpectedly sprang open as he was about to release it. The trial judge held that the appellant was in breach of its duty to provide a safe system of work and that the respondent was not contributorily negligent, and awarded the respondent damages of $404,957.15. 2 The appellant appealed in relation to liability, contributory negligence and damages.
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