What happened

In 2013, the plaintiff followed a site supervisor's unloading directions and moved an empty wooden pallet, revealing an opening into a retention pit about four metres deep. Responsibility and contribution were disputed among principal contractor Hallmark, subcontractor Copeland, the supervisor's employer and the driver's employer.

The issues

The court considered whether the driver's knowledge of general site dangers required him to investigate this concealed fall risk. It also examined attribution of the supervisor's conduct and the relative responsibility of the principal contractor and the subcontractor controlling the immediate work.

The court's decision

There was no circumstance alerting a reasonable driver in the plaintiff's position that an apparently discarded pallet covered a deep opening. Copeland's responsibility for the supervisor's work stood, and allocation changed to 25% for Hallmark and 75% for Copeland. The agreed damages remained intact; a later judgment adjusted part of the appeal costs.

Understanding the figures

The historical AUD 1,600,000 judgment against Hallmark for the plaintiff's agreed damages remained. Copeland's contribution to Hallmark became AUD 1,200,000. In the separate workers' compensation recovery proceeding, the contribution relating to interest became AUD 121,564.64; it is not an additional award to the injured plaintiff.

What this case shows

Contributory negligence required attention to the actual kind of harm and what the plaintiff knew or ought to have known, rather than general statements that sites are dangerous. For allocation and responsibility, actual authority and control of the work mattered alongside formal employment arrangements.

Why another case may differ

AUD 1.6 million was agreed damages, not a fresh appellate valuation of the injuries. Workers' compensation recovery and inter-company contribution are distinct from additional compensation to the plaintiff. The July 2020 sequel varied some costs orders without changing the responsibility percentages or the plaintiff's damages.

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? →