What happened
In June 2016, a crane deposited a pair of I-beams in an unstable position at a construction site. The licensed dogman, who was also the supervisor, directed the untrained plaintiff to approach and disconnect the chains without first checking stability; a beam toppled and injured his foot. Repeated surgery, chronic pain and functional restrictions followed, and the court accepted the core account while rejecting later embellishments.
The issues
The issues were whether the employer should have required stability checks, controlled access and disconnection by a qualified dogman, and whether obeying the instruction amounted to contributory negligence. Quantum required separating the loss of practical earning capacity from uncertainty about continuous employment even without the injury.
The court's decision
The court found that the employer omitted the necessary safeguards and positively directed an approach without a safety check, causing the injury. The employer did not prove contributory negligence. Although practical earning capacity was entirely lost, the calculation reflected the plaintiff's irregular work history and deducted weekly compensation already paid, producing judgment for AUD 1,030,742.67 with costs left for later determination.
Understanding the figures
The historical assessment comprised AUD 519,276.56 past loss, AUD 847,302.62 future economic loss and an agreed AUD 52,663.40 Fox v Wood component, totalling AUD 1,419,242.58. Deducting AUD 388,499.91 in weekly compensation gave judgment for AUD 1,030,742.67. The earnings figures already incorporate the 30% contingency discount; costs remained unresolved, and this is not a statement of cash received after all adjustments.
What this case shows
An untrained worker's reasonable reliance on the skilled supervisor's instruction mattered to the rejection of contributory negligence. For damages, complete loss of present capacity did not establish that employment would otherwise have been continuous, so the court assessed both potential earnings and likely gaps in work.
Why another case may differ
This was an employer damages claim under Part 5 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), limiting recovery to past and future economic loss, including relevant superannuation. The 30% deduction was not contributory negligence. A separate action against other site participants settled during the trial, but this judgment does not disclose that settlement or establish total recovery.
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? →