What happened

Spinks was injured by a passing car while helping empty a large bin behind a waste truck in 2009. The court found that he had checked for traffic and was standing still, rather than walking backwards into the car. Both his clothing and the truck provided conspicuous visual warnings.

The issues

The court considered whether the driver should have slowed further or warned the workers, and whether Spinks was himself careless. A further issue was whether an employer system preventing vehicles from passing in confined streets should reduce recovery under s 151Z.

The court's decision

The driver was negligent and no contributory negligence was found against Spinks. The employer's failure to implement a system blocking passage in narrow streets was assessed as 20% of the responsibility. The agreed damages were adjusted under the statutory method, with judgment and costs against the driver.

Understanding the figures

Historical agreed motor damages were AUD $476,862, compared with hypothetical employer damages of $280,000. Applying 20% to each produced $95,372.40 and $56,000; the $39,372.40 difference was deducted, leaving judgment for $437,489.60. Costs were ordered separately against the driver.

What this case shows

Reflective clothing and flashing lights did not remove the need to consider controlling vehicle access itself. A reduction resulting from employer responsibility was distinct from contributory negligence by the injured worker.

Why another case may differ

The decision concerns the interaction of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 and Workers Compensation Act 1987 for a 2009 accident. The 20% employer apportionment did not translate into simply deducting 20% from motor damages. Non-economic loss was unavailable because the motor-accident threshold was not met.

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? →