QUESTION
STEVENS V BRODRIBB SAWMILLING CO PTY LTD (1986) 160 CLR 16
MAH11959 – COMMERCIAL LAW
SOLUTION
INTRODUCTION:
Case appealed on special leave at the High Court from Supreme Court of Victoria. The parties to the appeal are Stevens the truck driver (plaintiff), Gray (defendant & appellant) & Brodribb Sawmilling Company Proprietary Limited (Brodribb (defendant, respondent)). The arguments in this case is to understand the relationship of Sawmilling with Gray and Stevens, i.e. whether it is a contract of service or contract for service (Marshall Brenda, 2006). We analyze the judgment of High court based on these grounds and also measure the liability of Brodribb to other parties.
FACTS AND ISSUE OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case are, Brodribb the saw miller engaged sniggers and truckers to move the timber from the plateau to the sawmill, the snigger and the truckers were utilizing their own vehicles and had set their own work hours and they were independent to seek any work based on the weather conditions, they were not obliged to Brodribb to work only for the sawmill. During the course of work, Gray the snigger was loading the truck with log could not load the small log which was fractionally longer than the blade of the bulldozer, then Stevens the truck driver attached chains to the log in order to help with the loading into the truck. In the course of action Stevens was injured and he claimed damages from Brodribb and Gray.
The issue involved in the case is based on the liability of Brodribb towards Gray and Stevens, is he vicariously liable towards them, or the relation between them the relation of employee employer or principle and independent contractor, and if liable on what basis is Brodribb liable. It is also essential to consider whether the relation of Brodribb towards Stevens was non-delegable, i.e. is he liable for the act of negligence of person engaged by him, as he had not taken proper care while engaging a contractor. Finally, we have to also ascertain whether Brodribb is liable to Steven under duty of care for hazardous work, Matania v. National Provincial Bank[1] (Slesser L.J, 1936).
RATIO DECIDENDI:
- As we understood the issue of the case we move further with the reasons for the judgment taken by the high court in this case. It is very essential that we understand the issues related to the case which have resulted in this judgment.
i. The first issue is to understand the relationship between Brodribb, Gray and Stevens.
ii. Secondly, we need to understand the liability of Brodribb whether it is of vicarious liability or is he liable primarily to Stevens and Gray and being a principle is he liable to the act of Gray.
iii. The final issue would be relating to the breach of ethical value that is the ethical responsibility Brodribb had towards his contractors while performing the contract.
Based on the given issues it is essential that we understand the relationship between these three, whether it is of an employer employee or an independent contract. Based on the facts and arguments the relationship is of an independent contractor, because in the course of completing the work the machinery utilized and the time scheduled was according to Gray and Stevens, Brodribb exercised no control over the manner in which the sniggers and the truckers carried on their task and also there is an evidence in support of this argument that Gray appointed his son to work along with them and Stevens had improvised his own skid for uploading the logs into the truck, which was not the attitude of a servant but independent contractor[2] (also Dixon J judgment in Humberstone (1949) 79 CLR).
Once the relation is proved we need to argue if Brodribb is vicarious or principally liable to Stevens or Gray, as per Australian Law the principle is never held liable for the act of the independent contractor, even though the relation is proved to be that of independent contractor, it is argued that the activities of Gray and Stevens were controlled by Brodribb, Gray was under the control of the bush boss and was bound to obey his instructions, Stevens had to follow instructions as to which part of the timber he had to work on, from these it can be understood that both Stevens and Gray being independent contractors were servants to Brodribb as the company had the authority to dismiss either of them. Alternatively if we consider the relation to be of an independent contractor then Brodribb is liable for act of Gray because he did not advise Gray to use the fork skid which was used in the factory nor they ensured that logging and carting were done with care and such duty of care is not delegated (Kondis v. State Transport Authority) as all the activities performed were extra hazardous Brodribb is held liable to Stevens for the act of Gray as it is proved from above that he is servant as in performance of work he had to obey him (Kaye and Brooking JJ., Starke J. dissenting, 1984), also from the organizational test[3] Brodribb is held liable for the act of Gray because under the organizational test it is essential to derive whose business it is and the parties performing the act have performed the business for themselves or for other person, Gray in this context was working for Brodribb and in the course of performing his tack this incident occurred thus Brodribb is liable.
It is proved that Brodribb is liable to Stevens for the act of Gray but now we need to understand if the liability from the ethical points of view a vicarious liability or a principle liability. Being in the industry of sawmill for many years Brodribb could have foreseen the dangers such as the current incident, but the company did not feel itself responsible to the contractor as it had towards its employees for which reason it did not engage any of its employees in this hazardous work. This irresponsible behavior of Brodribb of not taking precautionary measures make them primarily liable than vicariously liable (Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman,1985). Brodribb had breached the duty to care and take extra precautions required for an hazardous work as such in the given case, it is this behavior which makes them even ethically liable because they had not taken the precautions required for the extra hazardous work[4] he had contracted with Gray and Stevens. Brodribb being the principle is ethically liable for the act of the Independent contractor (Stickley Amanda P, 2009) because he did not abide by the ethical value to take precautions in the hazardous work they had assigned to the contractors, they should take the required care as the act involves human life and safety.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT DECISION:
From the above reasons we can analyze that the court decision to be perfect to this case as per the given reasons, but the question arises what should be the scenario if the act was done due to intentional negligence then is Brodribb liable, in such situation we need to recheck the organization test and also the arguments about the location and the type of work. Even if it a hazardous work the question is was there any skill required for it or that anyone can do this work. Here in the case the judge observed that this work could also be done by employees of Brodribb so the judgment was in favor of Stevens. The decision can also be further analyzed against Brodribb because he did not appoint an additional person during the work that could have warned Gray while lodging the small log. He had breached his duty to care towards Gray and Stevenson because the work he had involved them was hazardous and also Brodribb before starting the work should have taken all the precautions to avoid damages. If Brodribb had taken care and even appointed a separate person to look over the work and then this act had occurred then Gray would have termed to be liable and not Brodribb. In the course of work it is essential that there is provision of a safe system as this is an extra hazardous work and there is distinct risk of personal injury to those engaged in the operation. Observing it is the duty of Brodribb we can analyze from the facts of the case that these have been breached by Brodribb and thus the court decision is valid and applicable as the liability of Brodribb is proved.
CONCLUSION:
From the given facts and the analysis it can be concluded that the relation of Brodribb and the parties was that of an independent contractor and that there exists a contract for service (Marshall Brenda, 2006) and that Gray and Stevens were not employed under Brodribb but he is held liable because the work he had assigned to the contractors was a hazardous task and even though there were no accidents in the past he must have taken precautions foreseeing the danger of personal injury which had taken place in the current situation (Jaensch v. Coffey, 1984). Thus the decision of the court was accepted and also that the relationship based on the ground of attitude and cases were dismissed at cost.
REFERENCE:
- Broom v Morgan [1953] 1 QB 597
- Building Workers Industrial Union v Odco Pty Ltd (t/a Troubleshooters Available) (1991) 99
- ALR 735
- Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21
- Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills (1949) 79 CLR 389
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 258 ALR 673
- Narich Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (NSW) (1984) 58 ALJR 30
- Performing Right Society Ltd v Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse) Ltd [1924] 1 KB 762
- Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
- Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd(1955) 93 CLR 561
- Brenda Marshall, Working it out- Employee or independent contractor?, The National Legal Eagle, Vol. 12 [2006], Iss. 2, Art. 5; http://works.bepress.com/brenda_marshall/26
[1] [1936] 2 All E.R. p. 633 at 646
[2] Australian Mutual Provident Society v. Chaplin (1978) 18 A.L.R. 385 at 391 defines that the power to delegate is an important factor in deciding whether the individual is a servant or an independent contractor.
[3] Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works [1947] 1 D.L.R. 161, at p. 169 for organization test which avoids the complications associated with the employee/independent contract test
[4] Salsbury v. Woodland [1970] 1 Q.B., 324, at pp.336, 337,347 and Honeywill & Stein Ltd. V. Larkin Bros. Ltd. [1956] A.C. 627, at pp. 639, 646-647 helps in distinguishing the principle’s liability as primary or vicarious
KI59
But you can order it from our service and receive complete high-quality custom paper. Our service offersLaw essay sample that was written by professional writer. If you like one, you have an opportunity to buy a similar paper. Any of the academic papers will be written from scratch, according to all customers’ specifications, expectations and highest standards.”
