Negligence in Construction: A Case Study of Wayne Vickery's Death

This case study analyzes a negligence case within the Australian legal system, specifically focusing on the death of Wayne Vickery at a construction site. The case examines the elements of negligence, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages, in relation to the actions of the grader driver and the construction company, Canberra Construction. The company pleaded guilty to negligence and was fined, highlighting the legal consequences of failing to implement safety protocols. The study also considers the implications of holding individual employees liable versus the company, and the potential societal consequences of such rulings. The document provides a detailed overview of the legal principles and practical applications of negligence in the context of workplace accidents, offering valuable insights for students studying law. Desklib provides access to similar case studies and solved assignments for academic support.

1
Name:
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

2
Question 1
Introduction
The main aim or the fundamental role of civil law is create a legal foundation for institutions,
transactions and doctrines on the basis of commercial law and civil society. In its operations,
civil law balances rights of private individuals with legal responsibilities and obligations.
Question 2
Law of Tort
By definition, a Tort is a French word meaning wrongful act. The law of Tort includes all
civil wrongs which are either accidental or intentional in which an injury occurs to another
person. All Torts includes cases of negligence and also intended intentional wrongs which
leads to injury or harm to another person (Ben-Shahar, and Porat, 2016).
Question 3
While establishing a liability in negligence, the following elements have to be proven
beyond reasonable doubt for there to be a case. Most claims arise for accidents guarantees
that the basis in which a company or an individual can be held responsible legally for any
harm is known as negligence. (Best, Barnes, and Kahn-Fogel, 2018). For the case to be fully
executed and won, the injured person (plaintiff) must show beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendant acted with negligence. The plaintiff must prove using the following;
1. Element 1:Duty- under the circumstances, the defendant had a legal duty owed to the
plaintiff. In the case of Canberra Construction Vs Wayne Vickery; the driver of the
grader had the duty of looking where he was backing. Wayne had not made contact
with the driver of the grader even though protocols required him to do so during road

3
construction. However, the employer, Canberra construction pleaded guilty to
negligence even though the judge was satisfied that the company took safety
responsibilities seriously. The judge noted that the accident was caused by individual
employees not observing the safety rules and their inability to implement them
(Fulbrook, 2017).
2. Element 2: Breach- the plaintiff must prove that there was a breach of legal duty by
the defendant failing to act the way a ‘’reasonably prudent person’’ would act under
the same circumstance. In this context ‘’reasonably prudent person” is a reference to
how the law views that an average person would act. In the case of Wayne Vickery
vs. Canberra construction, the grader driver had the duty of looking where he was
heading but breached that duty leading to the death of Wayne. The construction
company Canberra pleaded guilty of negligence and therefore breach of duty through
one of its employees. The plaintiff has to show that a reasonably prudent person
would have acted differently.
3. Element 3: Causation- the plaintiff must prove that the negligence by the defendant
actually caused harm or injury. They must show for example due to the plaintiff not
taking necessary precautions or following instructions, it led to the harm. In the case
study provided, the judge is convinced that the driver of the grader never looked
where he was going therefore backing to Mr. Wayne and killing him. The driver
showed negligence in this case. However, if the defendant show that injury to the
plaintiff was caused by a random unexpected acts of nature, the injury would be seen
as unforeseeable and therefore no liability in the case of the defendant (Goldberg,
Sebok and Zipursky, 2016).
4. Element 4: Damages- this is where the court is required to determine the
compensation to the plaintiff due to the injury received. It is usually in monetary form

4
for costs such as medical or repair of damaged property. In the case of Wayne
Vickery vs. Canberra construction, the wife of Wayne was awarded $ 82,500 as from
the fine imposed on the construction company. This is however due to the fact that the
company had actively supported the family of Mr. Vickery.
Question 4
Case: Wayne Vickery vs. Canberra construction
Wayne Vickery was killed on duty in a construction site when a grader rammed into him
killing him. The grader driver was guilty of negligence as has been shown using the four
elements. The construction company pleaded guilty of negligence and was fined $82,500.
Question 5
If there is more than one defendant, the most likely person to be liable of negligence is the
one who was in action. In this case, the driver of the grader was liable but the employer
(Canberra construction) had already pleaded guilty (Henderson, 2017).
Question 6
Consequences of finding the first defendant guilty to the society.
The implication to the society is that only the employees will be liable to negligence. This
means that the company or the employer will never be held liable over anything and will only
lead to people avoiding high risky jobs due to negligence. It would also lead to loss of
incomes, properties and other assets as awards for hefty fines imposed by the courts (Luntz,
et al,2017). Most of the people would actually be unable to pay the compensation or even if
they pay, they are driven back to poverty. There is also a high probability that the plaintiff
would not get instant justice due to inability of most defendants to pay compensation.

5
References
Ben-Shahar, O. and Porat, A., 2016. Personalizing negligence law. NYUL Rev., 91, p.627.
Best, A., Barnes, D.W. and Kahn-Fogel, N., 2018. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and
problems. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Fulbrook, J., 2017. Outdoor activities, negligence and the law. Routledge.
Goldberg, J.C., Sebok, A.J. and Zipursky, B.C., 2016. Tort Law: Responsibilities and
Redress. Aspen Publishers.
Henderson Jr, J.A., 2017. Learned Hand's Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence
Law. Calif. L. Rev., 105, p.165.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S.,
2017. Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.