Analyzing Negligence: A Case Study of Recaf Pty Ltd Employee Injury

This case study examines a legal dispute involving Recaf Pty Ltd, focusing on an employee injury and the company's potential liability. The scenario involves Bob Black, an employee injured while operating a roasting machine, and Sarah Day, the trainer whose alleged negligence contributed to the incident. The analysis delves into the concept of duty of care, particularly the employer's responsibility to provide a safe working environment and adequate training. It explores whether Recaf Pty Ltd breached this duty of care, leading to Bob's injuries. The discussion also considers the concept of vicarious liability, assessing whether the company is responsible for Sarah's actions. Furthermore, the case study analyzes the test of carelessness used by the courts to determine the standard of care required and whether that standard was met. It concludes by considering the potential damages Bob may be entitled to, including medical expenses, lost wages, and indirect damages, referencing the case of Casting v Wardlaw to support the claim.

Running Head: Task Three
Task Three
System04128

Task Three
Table of Contents
Matter 1.................................................................................................................................................2
Matter 2.................................................................................................................................................3
Matter 3.................................................................................................................................................4
Bibliography..........................................................................................................................................6
1 | P a g e

Task Three
Matter 1
The duty of care was on the company to give protection to its employees. Bob
replaced the last operator and since he is new to the company, so he should have been trained
properly. He was operator of dangerous roasting machine which is highly dangerous when it
is not operate properly and safely.
Duty of care consist-
 Observing every single legitimate necessity in regards to interest
 resourcing and executing prosperity and security techniques
 safe work planning
 providing that the activity is directed in a way that no harm is done to anyone
 identifying prosperity planning required for development
 ensuring professionals embrace suitable and explicit security planning
 consulting labourers regarding safety
 investigating risk assessment and guaranteeing supportive actions
 making beyond any doubt labourers can swiftly get (Primary duty of care, 2019)
Commitment of thought is a bit of the greater legitimate thought of lack of regard.
Inconsiderateness is said to occur when hurt bounces out at another person on account of
someone fail to rehearse reasonable thought. Commitment of thought requires that a
commendable standard of thought that is reasonably practicable be given to ensure the
prosperity and security of those at the workplace and moreover to those impacted by the work
that you do. Commitment of thought insinuates the obligation of each person to do everything
inside his or her capacity to guarantee a sheltered and sound condition (Employer’s Duty of
Care to Employees, 2015). Commitment of thought places into a definitive report a moral
commitment to anticipate potential explanations behind harm and affliction and to do
everything reasonably practicable to empty or constrain these potential purposes behind
devilishness. This commitment of thought is made into the Workplace Health and Safety Act
1995 (Workplace Health and Safety, 2011) as responsibilities. Obligation of consideration at
that point implies being in a position where another person is probably going to be influenced
by what you do, or do not do, where, in the event that you are not cautious, it can sensibly be
anticipated that the other individual may endure some mischief. Every experienced person
has a duty to take care of the new employees as hey know the threats in the working of the
company. The manner in which the court deciphers whether there was a rupture of obligation
2 | P a g e

Task Three
of consideration will rely upon a scope of components and conditions (The right to safety and
adequate care, 2019).
Here it was duty of Sarah, who was the trainer of Bob and she did not clearly informed
Bob about the timing of roasting machine. She owned a duty of care towards her employers
and she had an experience of more than 10 years. Sarah breached duty of care so the
company is vicariously liable for the act of Sarah.
Matter 2
The test of carelessness used by the courts is to decide the standard of consideration that is
required and whether that standard has been met in the activities or exclusions of the network
and inability administrations labourer. The standard of consideration is resolved in
connection to the class of individuals to which the respondent has a place. That is, in
connection to a network and inability administrations specialist, the standard is that of a
cautious, skilful and judicious network administrations labourer. The desire is that the expert
will practice sensible consideration to dodge predictable dangers. The most important thing to
keep in mind that the standard of consideration is that of a sensibly capable talented
individual, not the largest amount of aptitude and not the total fledgling. The standard is to be
resolved from acknowledged proficient practice that was present at the season of the
occurrence.
Employer has an obligation to provide and maintain safe and secure working environment for
labourers under Section 19(1) of Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (About the
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, 2019) . In other words, it is known as “duty of
care”. It consists of:
 providing and monitoring on safe working environment
 providing information on any danger or risk at work
 providing guidance to work safely to the labourers
 providing advice on the working conditions of the company
 labourers will get sufficient safety equipment if the risk is too big to overcome
3 | P a g e

Task Three
It is the duty of every employer to provide safe environment to its workers but Sarah
failed to perform her duty and as a result of her wrong information, Bob got injured. The
company is vicariously responsible for act of Sarah.
Matter 3
An individual cannot be in danger for damages for powerlessness to take care to
neutralize singular harm or destruction with the exception of if reckless lead on his or her part
caused the wickedness and aside from if that hurt was not exceptionally “remote” from the
imprudent direct. The current and latest law in Australia radiates an impression of being that
whether reckless lead caused the wickedness being alluded to cannot avoid being to be
answered by the use of 'common sense'. An issue with this system is that it gives courts and
social occasions to thoughtlessness states no heading about when indiscreet lead will be
considered to have caused harmed (Foreseeability, Standard of Care, Causation).
Casting v Wardlaw (Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, 1956), which sets out the
rule that any of the contributory variables can be treated as a reason for the all-out damage
endured, if it made a 'material commitment' to the mischief. The impact of this standard is
that a litigant might be subject for the all-out mischief endured by an offended party despite
the fact that it can't be said that, yet for the direct of defendant, the affected person will not
endure all-out damage. It must be said that however, for the lead of defendant party would
not have cause a portion of that hurt (Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, 2019).
The ‘material commitment to damage’ and ‘material commitment to hazard’ standards
both enable careless lead to be treated as an accurate reason for mischief despite the fact that
it can't be demonstrated on the equalization of probabilities that there was in actuality a
causal connection between the direct and the mischief. At the end of the day, in specific
conditions, it might be suitable to 'connect the evidentiary hole' by permitting verification that
careless lead physically added to hurt or the danger of mischief to fulfil the necessity of
evidence of truthful causation (Negligence, 2019).
Bob’s accident was due to false information given to him by Sarah and that resulted in his
accident. By applying, the judgment of the case of Casting Bob is entitled for following
expenses from the company-
4 | P a g e

Task Three
1. medical expenses
2. loss of wages of three days because he was in hospital
3. He lost eye vision in an eye and cannot be an umpire in cricket so he will not be able
to earn from there and the company is liable to pay him the indirect damages as well.
4. As he has paid for the trip but could not go due to fracture and broken bones, so he
can recover money from the company.
5. He was mentally depressed so he can clam mental damages as well.
Bibliography
5 | P a g e

Task Three
About the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. (2019). Retrieved from Government of Western
Australia: https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/worksafe/about-occupational-safety-and-health-
act-1984
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, 613 (House of Lords 1956).
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw. (2019). Retrieved from e-lawresources: http://www.e-
lawresources.co.uk/Bonnington-Castings-Ltd-v-Wardlaw.php
Employer’s Duty of Care to Employees. (2015, May 21). Retrieved from LegalVision:
https://legalvision.com.au/employers-duty-of-care-to-employees/
Foreseeability, Standard of Care, Causation. (n.d.). Retrieved from Treasury:
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/R2002-001_Foreseeability.pdf
Negligence. (2019). Retrieved from Legal Services Commission of South Australia:
https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php
Primary duty of care. (2019). Retrieved from safeWork NSW:
https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/legal-obligations/employer-business-obligations/primary-
duty-of-care
The right to safety and adequate care. (2019, January 15). Retrieved from QCOSS Community:
https://etraining.communitydoor.org.au/mod/page/view.php?id=69
Workplace Health and Safety. (2011, June 6). Retrieved from Legislation Queensland:
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/repealed/current/act-1995-025
6 | P a g e