Where the circumstances of an accident are unusual — such as a worker being projected upwards over protruding metal bars before falling — evidence of the practicability of a safety harness as a precaution requires technical or expert evidence and cannot be established by lay evidence or common sense inference alone. A mere allegation that a harness should have been worn is insufficient where the evaluation of whether the harness would have functioned to prevent or reduce injury involves issues of technical knowledge. The same causation requirement applies to both contributory negligence and employer negligence under s 151Z(2).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 29 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 29 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.