Case name & citation: Steven George Villanti v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Limited; Steven George Villanti v All Staff Australia NSW Pty Ltd t/as Allstaff Australia [2017] NSWSC 1231
The NSW Supreme Court examined the application of sections 3B and 112 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (“the Act”) in the context of a labour hire worker injured by an uninsured motor vehicle. The vehicle was owned by the host employer and operated by another employee of the same labour hire company. Associate Justice Harrison ruled that the labour hire company was vicariously liable for its employee’s actions, excluding the liability of the host employer.
Background
The worker sustained a crush injury to his right leg when struck by a pallet mover while working at a warehouse owned by the host employer.
The pallet mover was operated by a co-employee from the same labour hire company employing the injured worker.
The worker pursued damages from both his direct employer (the labour hire company) and the host employer, alleging:
1. The labour hire company owed a non-delegable duty of care to ensure a safe work environment and was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee.
2. The host employer owed a duty of care equivalent to that of an employer.
Key Findings in Steven George Villanti v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Limited
1. Host Employer’s Liability:
The Court found the host employer not liable under negligence. It determined that the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 were not satisfied.
The worker’s injuries were entirely caused by the negligence of the pallet mover’s driver, for which the labour hire company was vicariously liable.
2. Presumption of Agency (Section 112 of the Act):
The Court addressed whether the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 established a statutory agency relationship between the driver of the pallet mover and its owner (host employer).
Section 112 requires satisfaction of threshold provisions under sections 3A and 3B, which were not met in this case.
Consequently, no statutory agency relationship arose, and the host employer was not deemed liable.
3. Dual Vicarious Liability:
The Court emphasized the Australian legal position that dual vicarious liability (where two entities are concurrently liable for the same employee’s actions) is not recognized.
The labour hire company, as the employer of the pallet mover driver, bore sole liability for the injury.
Implications
This decision highlights the complexities in determining liability in labour hire arrangements, particularly when employees of the labour hire company injure co-workers.
Courts will closely scrutinize the roles and relationships of host employers and labour hire companies in such scenarios.
Host employers are generally shielded from liability unless a direct employer-like relationship or negligence can be established.
Conclusion (Steven George Villanti v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Limited)
The case underscores that:
1. Host employers are not automatically liable for injuries caused by labour hire workers employed by another entity.
2. The principle of no dual vicarious liability reinforces the need to assess the primary employer’s responsibility in workplace injuries.
An appeal could further clarify these legal principles.
References:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: