Miller v Paua Nominees Pty Ltd

[2004] WASCA 220

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Scaffolding contractor
5. › Worker injured accessing aircraft from scaffolding
6. › Whether scaffolder owed duty of care to worker to ensure safe means of access
7. › Whether contractual scope of work could confine tortious duty of care
8. › Whether risk of workers misusing scaffolding to access aircraft was reasonably foreseeable
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Relationship between contractual and tortious obligations
5. › Whether terms of contract between scaffolder and employer could preclude duty of care owed to third party worker
6. › Whether assumption of responsibility under contract gave rise to tortious duty
1. Appeal
2. › Appellate review
3. › Findings of fact by trial judge
4. › Whether finding that scaffolder did not know method of access to top of aircraft was open on the evidence

Quick Take

A scaffolding contractor who assumes responsibility for getting workers close to the work face and ensuring safety is paramount owes a duty of care to workers to ensure safe means of access, even where the contract does not expressly require provision of access to particular areas and the contractor is not informed of the employer's system of work. The contractor's knowledge that workers must reach an area, combined with knowledge that the scaffolding does not provide safe access to that area, gives rise to a duty to make inquiries and provide safe access. The terms of a scaffolding contract cannot confine the scope of the tortious duty of care owed to workers.