Hill-Douglas & Anor v Beverley

[1998] QCA 435

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Employer's duty of care
4. › Duty to warn
5. › Whether employer required to warn employee of obvious and known risk
6. › Whether risk obvious to experienced employee
7. › Scope of duty to warn where employee exercises discretion in mode of work performance
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Employer's duty of care
4. › Safe system of work
5. › Whether failure to provide assistance (sheepdog or human) constituted unsafe system
6. › Whether employer required to provide specific instructions for routine tasks
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Failure to warn cases
5. › Whether plaintiff must prove warning would have been heeded
6. › Evidentiary onus of proof
7. › Whether [name withheld] v [name withheld] principles confined to medical negligence
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Review of ultimate facts or conclusions
4. › Whether finding of negligence supportable by evidence

Quick Take

The evidentiary onus principles on causation in failure-to-warn cases stated in Chappel v Hart (1998) 72 ALJR 1344 are confined to medical negligence and do not apply in general negligence cases where the plaintiff knew of the risk and could have avoided it by performing the task differently. An employer is not required to warn an experienced employee of obvious and known risks where the employee exercises discretion in the mode of performing work, and there is no identifiable practical step the employer could take to reduce the risk.