What happened
At a rain-affected building site in 2020, the self-employed carpenter bent to retrieve plastic to cover about ten gyprock sheets leaning upright against a wall when the sheets collapsed, injuring his left knee and ankle. There was no relevant risk assessment, safe work method, training or warning about storage and handling, and the injury permanently reduced his capacity for heavy carpentry work to about 50-60%.
The issues
The issues were whether a reasonable principal contractor should have used dry, horizontal storage, supports and safety instruction against the collapse risk; whether possible contact by the plaintiff broke causation; and whether trying to cover the sheets was contributory negligence. Quantum disputes concerned non-economic loss, past and future earnings, treatment and domestic assistance.
The court's decision
The Court held that the risk from upright, rain-affected gyprock was foreseeable and not insignificant, while dry and flat storage and instruction involved little burden. Even if the plaintiff inadvertently touched the sheets, that was the very collapse risk against which precautions were required, and his attempt to protect the defendant's material was not careless, so contributory negligence was rejected.
Understanding the figures
Fixed historical components were AUD 15,563.27 past treatment expenses, AUD 156,100 past economic loss and AUD 350,000 future economic loss. Non-economic loss was assessed at 34% of a most extreme case and one future left-knee operation plus postoperative physiotherapy was allowed, but the judgment left the total to be agreed or assessed.
What this case shows
The decision shows that an experienced subcontractor's presence does not remove the principal contractor's responsibility for concrete storage and instruction precautions under its control. Causation is not broken merely because ordinary work activity triggers the very risk the defendant should have guarded against, and the absence of WHS systems provided important context for reasonable precautions.
Why another case may differ
The reasons determined liability and several heads of damage but did not fix the exact future-treatment amount or a final total, leaving those matters for agreement or further hearing. The listed components must not be added into an invented verdict, and alleged right-knee and back symptoms were not found causally related to the accident.
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? →