What happened
On 8 February 2005 at Port Kembla, the respondent was supervising coal loading on the MV Iron Chieftain when he slipped on slurry on the port deck while walking towards a forward hatch. He knew the deck could be slippery and had complained to his employer, but the ship interests had not swept or closed the port route or advised him to use the safer starboard side.
The issues
The central issue was whether the shipowner and operator's common-law duty was displaced or narrowed because the experienced stevedore was the person in charge under the Marine Orders. The Court also addressed federal maritime jurisdiction, the interaction of Commonwealth maritime safety law with picked-up State law, contributory negligence and the employer's share of responsibility.
The court's decision
The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed because the ship interests knew their operations created the danger and failed to take readily available precautions. The primary findings of 15 per cent contributory negligence, 40 per cent responsibility for the employer and 60 per cent for the ship interests remained, leaving the historical award of AUD 118,278.
Understanding the figures
The primary judge assessed total historical damages at AUD 231,918.03, then applied 15 per cent contributory negligence and a 40 per cent allocation to the employer, ordering the ship interests to pay AUD 118,278. The pleaded AUD 750,000 was a claim, not an award.
What this case shows
The case shows that workplace safety obligations can be concurrent: an experienced contractor's authority does not automatically relieve the party that provides the workplace and creates the hazard. It is also a notable reminder that a State court hearing a maritime matter must identify federal jurisdiction and the legal basis on which State statutes operate.
Why another case may differ
The result depended on evidence that the ship's own recurring operations created the slurry, that the ship interests knew the starboard side was safer, and that sweeping or closing the port route was practicable. It applies a historical statutory setting, including the former Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 (Cth), Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), Marine Orders Part 32 and then-current NSW legislation.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →