Category Archives: Personal Injury

Duty of Care, Employer's liability, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury

Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 42

ON 10 AUGUST 1956, the High Court of Australia delivered Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 42; (1956) 96 CLR 18 (10 August 1956).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1956/42.html

The duty of care of a reasonably prudent employer is “a duty to take reasonble care to avoid exposing the employees to unnecessary risks of injury” (per Dixon CJ and Kitto J at 25) and “a duty to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to provide a safe system of working” (per Fullagar J at 34).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury

Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3

ON 5 MARCH 1952, the High Court of Australia delivered Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3; (1952) 85 CLR 437 (5 March 1952).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Consumer Law, Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury, Product liability

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2

ON 21 OCTOBER 1935, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2 (21 October 1935).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1935/2.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Consumer Law, Damages, LAW FIRM, Personal Injury, Product liability, Sale of Goods

Find a lawyer

ON 17 OCTOBER 1934, the High Court of Australia delivered David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47; (1934) 52 CLR 110 (17 October 1934).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1934/47.html

Per Rich J at 118-9:

“..whenever the description of the goods enters into the transaction so that the buyer must be taken to rely upon it to a substantial degree as well as upon the identity of the goods, it is a sale by description. Therefore, if the description is a matter that influenced the buyer and had a material bearing on the decision to buy, even if it was not the only matter that influenced the buyer, then the sale is one by description.”

Goods which only have one specific use are not of merchantable quality if they are not fit for their purpose.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Personal Injury

Addie v Dumbreck [1929] UKHL 3

ON THIS DAY in 1929, the House of Lords delivered Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358; UKHL 3 (25 February 1929).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1929/1929_SC_HL_51.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Defences, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury, Work injuries

Smith v Charles Baker & Sons [1891] UKHL 2

ON 21 JULY 1891, the House of Lords delivered Smith v Charles Baker & Sons [1891] UKHL 2 (21 July 1891).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1891/2.html

The English Court of Appeal had held that a railway worker could not recover damages for his injuries because he had voluntarily assumed the risk (volenti non fit injuria).

On appeal, the House of Lords held that the worker was not barred from recovery by the mere fact that he continued to work with the knowledge of the risk or danger. Whether or not the worker has assented to the risk is a question of fact not law.

The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision, holding that there was no evidence to find that the worker consented to the particular risk that caused his injuries.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088