Wikiversity

Wikiversity Law Reports/Sweeney v Boylan Nominees

< Wikiversity Law Reports
This is a Wikiversity Law Report.
High Court of Australia
On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

TL;DR: a refrigerator lessor is not vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person engaged to repair a refrigerator, where that person was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the refrigerator lessor

Facts

edit
  • The defendant operated a business of leasing refrigerators to petrol stations. The defendant was responsible for maintaining the refrigerator.
  • The plaintiff customer went into a petrol station to buy milk and opened such a refrigerator. The refrigerator door had been repaired badly by a mechanic hired by the defendant, and as a result the door fell off and caused injury to the appellant.
  • The plaintiff customer was unsuccessful in suing the petrol station operator. The plaintiff customer did not sue the mechanic.
  • The plaintiff customer sued the refrigerator lessor and was successful at first instance, but this judgment was overturned by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The plaintiff customer appealed to the High Court.

Held

edit
  • Rejected the proposition that 'if A "represents" B, B is vicariously liable for the conduct of A': paragraph 26.
  • While it is possible for a principal to be liable for the acts of an independent contractor in some circumstances, the general principle that a principal is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees but not of independent contractors is firmly entrenched in the law: paragraph 33.
  • The refrigerator lessor was not liable for the injuries caused by the faulty refrigerator door.

Important parts of the judgment

edit
  • Paragraph 11ff discusses the legal and policy basis of the modern doctrine of vicarious liability.
  • Paragraph 16ff discusses the meaning of the terms 'agent' and 'representative' as they are used in relevant case law.
  • Kirby J dissented on the basis that, while the mechanic was not an employee of the refrigerator lessor, the refrigerator lessor was vicariously liable for the mechanic's negligence because the mechanic was a 'representative agent' of the refrigerator lessor (the 'special principle' in Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co of Australia Ltd [1931] HCA 53; (1931) 46 CLR 41): see in particular paragraphs 85 and 113.

Other publishers' references

edit
  • [2006] HCA 19
  • (2006) 226 CLR 161
  • (2006) 227 ALR 46
  • (2006) 80 ALJR 900
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_Law_Reports/Sweeney_v_Boylan_Nominees&oldid=1824408"