Hilift Pty Ltd Essay Example for Free

Hilift Pty Ltd EssayHilift Pty Ltd (Hilift) owns an industrial exsert. Hilift employs two genus Grus operators, Elwyn and Os globe, who each work 4 hour shifts. In May 2008 the owner/builder of a new apartment block hires Hilifts hold out and operators for two weeks to lift building materials to the amphetamine floors of their building. At the end of the first shift on the 10 May, Elwyn nonifies the four-in-hand of Hilift that the stretch forth is not performing properly and that it commands looking at. The jitney contacts the lodge who does resorts and maintenance work on the crane, EFL Engineering, and asks for an engineer to be sent out immediately. EFL says that no-one is available for two hours. The animal trainer of Hilift decides to allow Osman to begin his shift before the engineer arrives, since to stop work go out delay plait.Osman is halfway through hoisting his first load when a cable television service in the crane snaps and the crane swings out of con trol, shattering into a unhorse floor of the building. Two construction actors in the building are injured. One has both(prenominal)(prenominal) legs crushed and they rent to be amputated. The other worker will be hospitalised for a long era with serious injuries but will make a full recovery. The building is damaged by the adventure and will cost $75,000 to repair. The construction of the building is slow down by three months be precedent of the accident, and for this effect the anticipate income from tenants is lost. Osman is late traumatized by these pointts and cannot bring himself to drive a crane again. After a period of six months without employment, during which he receives psychiatrical treatment, Osman takes lower paid work as a general construction worker. A ac corporationing inspection of the crane finds that the fault in the cable would have a bun in the oven been discovered if an engineer had inspected the crane later Elwyns shift had ended. To replace t his cable would have taken six hours.Advise Hilift as to whether, and to what extent, the company will be liable in tort for the wound that has occurred.FactsHilift Pty Ltd owns industrial craneMay 2008 engage to lift building materials to upper floor of new apartment block Hilift is aware crane is not performing properlyHilift contacts repairs companyHilift allows Osman to work before crane is looked atCable in crane snapsCauses $75 000 of property damage and delays construction by 3 months Osman is traumatized, cannot drive crane againerroneousness in cable would have been discovered by engineerAdvise Hilift as to whether, and to what extent, the company will be liable in tort for the hurt that has occurred.Consider Osman, verbal expression player 1, anatomical structure Worker 2 and the building owner using IRAC.IssueIs the company liable in tort for the harm that has occurred to Osman, Construction Worker 1, Construction Worker 2 and the building manager and to what extent? Ruletort of NegligenceThe respondent in a civil claim of negligence will only be liable to the applicant/plaintiff by way of damages if the followe elements are established on the balance of probabilities 1. That a duty of bang was owed by the respondent to the plaintiff in the relevant circumstance Here you would diagnose cases if relevant specific tests/standards etc. 2. That the respondent breached that duty of circumspection owed to the plaintiff and Again, cite case authority and any applicable standards e.g. reasonable individual 3. That the plaintiff has suffered some injury or damage as a result of that breach. Case authority e.g. the injury must be slightly foreseeable.Apply Osman1. Duty of carry on?Hilift reasonably ought to have been able to foresee, and clearly did know, that there would be pretend that the crane would malfunction or break which would probable cause physical or psychological harm to the crane operator, if he did not wait for the maintenance / repairs company. This is supported by the fact that the other operator, Elwyn, notifies the manager of Hilift after his shift recommending that the crane needs to be looked at. This is also supported by the fact that the manager contacts the maintenance company if he did not perceive there to be a essay, why did he contact the maintenance company and request a consultation immediately? While a person is not generally liable in tort for psychological harm, this is a special case downstairs the pure mental illness exception, whereby the plaintiff, Osman, witnessed the two construction workers being severely injured live linguistic rule Established a duty of care between employer and employee in Wilson Clide Coal Co LTG v incline (1938) employers owe employees a duty of care to provide a safe working environment, and genus Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951).2. Breach?Standard of care the reasonable man definitely would have believed there to be a real and foreseeable risk that the plaintiff might be injured if the crane malfunctioned or stone-broke The reasonable man would have waited the two hours for an engineer from EFL Engineering to check the crane. The reasonable man would have exercised a much greater standard of care, particularly as the crane was lifting building materials to upper floors and the consequences if the crane malfunctioned were very serious.3. Damage?Osman was deeply traumatized and cannot drive a crane again He received psychiatric treatment and would eventually take lower paid work. Causation if Hilift had waited for EFL Engineering, the cable would not have snapped and would not have caused Osmans psychological injury. (But for test) Foreseeability Hilift ought to have foreseen that if he did not wait for the EFL Engineering consult, that the crane could malfunction and this malfunction would be likely to cause injury or death to others and consequently cause a severe risk of physical or psychological harm to thecrane opera tor. outcome OsmanHilift would be liable in tort for the psychiatric injury to Osman, but is unlikely to be liable in tort for the honorarium for Osmans reduced salary after the accident because established in Kyogie shire horse Council v Francis (1989) that it is not permissible for the court to award damages to compensate the injured for profits they whitethorn have earned if not for the negligent conduct.Apply Construction worker 1 (Amputee)1. Duty of care?Hilift reasonably ought to have known that there would be a (not insignificant) risk that the crane would malfunction or break, which would, in turn, be likely to cause severe damage or injury to workmen below. Supported by Hilifts contact with the maintenance company if he did not perceive there to be a risk, why did he contact the maintenance company and request a consultation immediately? Neighbour principle Established a duty of care between employer and employee in Wilson Clide Coal Co Ltd v English (1938) employers ow e employees a duty of care to provide a safe working environment, and Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951).2. Breach?See Breach in Apply OsmanThe likely seriousness of the consequences of Hilift continuing construction without waiting for the engineer were extremely serious as the crane was handing heavy materials at a exalted altitude, which suggests Hilift ought to have exercised a higher standard of care.3. Damage?The snapping of the cable caused direct, severe injury to the construction worker, requiring amputation of both legs. Causation If Hilift had waited for EFL Engineering, the fault in the cable would have been detected and fixed, and the construction worker would not need to be amputated.Foreseeability Hilift ought to have foreseen that if he did not wait for the EFL Engineering consultant, the crane could malfunction and this would be likely to cause severe injury or death to construction workers working on lower floors.Conclusion Construction Worker 1Hilift would be liable in tort to pay compensation for the cost incurred by Construction Worker 1 due to that hospitalisation and forced amputation of both legs, and possibly even consequential mental harm depending on the mental health of Construction Worker 1.Apply Construction Worker 21. Duty of care?see Duty of care in Apply Construction Worker 1*2. Breach?Standard of care the reasonable man definitely would have believed there to be a real and foreseeable risk that the plaintiff might be injured if the crane malfunctioned or broke. The reasonable man would have waited the two hours for an engineer from EFL Engineering to check the crane. The reasonable man would have exercised a much greater standard of care, particularly as the crane was lifting building materials to upper floors and the likely seriousness of the consequences if the crane malfunctioned.3. Damage?The snapping of the cable hospitalised Construction Worker 2 for an extended period of time and serious injuries. Causation If Hilift had waited for EFL Engineering, the fault in the cable would have been detected and fixed, and the construction worker would not need to be hospitalised. Foreseeability Hilift ought to have foreseen that if they did not wait for the EFL Engineering consultation, the crane could malfunction and this would be likely to cause severe injury or death to construction workers working on lower floors.Conclusion Construction Worker 2Hilift would be liable in tort for compensation for the cost incurred by Construction Worker 2 for the hospitalisation due to Hilifts negligent inaction by allowing Osman to continue work on a faulty crane.Apply Building Manager1. Duty of care?Hilift ought to have foreseen that if the crane was faulty, it would likely cause damage to the building Duty of care professional persons (Hilift) owing a duty to client (building owner) established in Hill v Van Erp (1997). Analogous power manufacturers (Hilift) owing a duty to eventual consumer (building owner) established in Donohue v Stevenson (1932).2. Breach?Standard of care the reasonable man definitely would have believed there to be a real and foreseeable risk that the building would be damaged if the crane malfunctioned while handing heavy building materials. The reasonable man would have waited the two hours for an engineer from the EFL Engineering to check the crane.3. Damage?The building will cost $75 000 to repairConstruction is delayed by three months expected income from tenants during this period is lost. Causation If Hilift had waited for EFL Engineering, the fault in the cable would have been detected and fixed, and the building would not need to be repaired, nor will construction be delayed 3 months. Foreseeability Hilift ought to have foreseen that if he did not wait for the EFL Engineering consultation, the crane could malfunction and this would be likely to cause damage to the building.Conclusion Building ManagerHilift would be liable in tort for the compensation of $75, 000 for thebuilding repair, but precedent suggests the company will not be liable for compensation for the expected profits the building owner lost due to the three month delay. This was established in Kyogle shire Council v Francis (1989).