G RMIT

UNIVERSITY

ASSESSMENT TASK 1 (CASE NOTE) COVER SHEET

I. CASE NOTE DETAILS:

1. Course Code: LAW2447 (Commercial Law)

2. Name:

4. Group:

Lecturer's name:

II. CASE NOTE INSTRUCTIONS:

1) The deadline, late penalty policy, referencing piude, marking rubric, rind other detailed instiuctions
repordinp the Assessment Tosk 1 - Cose Note con be fotmd on the following Convos poge:
httus://rmit.instrricture.com/courses/87399/assieiiments/581240

2) This is on assessment and you should work independently. CoiTespondence to lectiu’ers directly or
impliedly seeking sample answers of the assessment question or osking for a review of a draft will
not be attended.

3) Pleose be advised thot if you send rim ei oil to your lecturer outside the business hotu’s, you should
not expect to receive o response until the next business day at the earliest.

4) The word limit for the Case Note is 700 words (+-10%; appendices, references, footnotes, etc. are
not cotmted). The examiner will stop reading once reaching this word limit. Issues covered in the
excessive part will not be counted and will be marked as "missing". You ore going to lose credit for
these missing issues. Thus, please write precisely and succinctly to cover all relevant issues within
the word limit.

5) Lecturers' expectations for this assessment ore set out cleni’1y in the Rubric rind Case Note Guide.
To do well in this assessment, pleose read these documents cni’eftilly end follow the requirements
therein.
 Case Note Question:
Some rommentators riiticize that the rase (judgment) below was wi’ong1y decided. Other’s disagree and
think that it was convincingly decided. Please give your own opinion about the rase (whether it was
convincingly decided by the judge or not).

In discussing the case, please follow the requirements and instructions set out in lhe Case Note Guide &
Case
Note hIai’kine Riibi’ic which can be found on Canvas.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL

CITATION CAVANAGH -v- SYD MATTHEWS & CO PTYLTD [2004] WADC 11
BETWEEN : TREVOR PAUL CAVANAGH - Plninti&
SYD MATTHEWS & CO PTY LTD - Defendant
Representation:
Couusel/Adi’iser:
Plaintiff Mr P S Bates
Defendant Mr D R Clyne
SolicitorsXmiy’ers:
Plaintiff Paul O’Halloran & Associates
Defendant McAuliffe Williams & Pamieis

JERKINS DCJ: The plaintiff, Trevor Paul Cavanagh. seeks damages for personal mjiuies tlint lie
allegedly suffered on 13 December 1995 when he fell front a sheep crate whilst employed by the
defendant, Syd Mattliews& Co Pty Ltd ("the fall").

Facts
6 I find the following facts proven unless otherwise stated.
7 The plaintiff was born in 1960 and accordingly is 43 years of age. He was born and raised in
Kojonup and is one of seven children. He has three brothers from whom he is estranged. After
completing year eight at high school lie entered the work force and up until 1994 he was
employed in the Kojonup area. At various times he was a stock inaiinger, sheared, truck driver and
sheep carter. He leant to shear sheep in 1978-9. In the early 1980’s he worked for the defendant as
a mick driver carting livestock, grain and fertiliser. He resigned from that employment in 1982 due
to a dispute with Neville Matthews, one of the defendant's principals. In 1985 he returned to
shearing, which he did up to 1993.
8 By 1994, as a consequence of Ins employment history and his upbringing as the son of a mick driver,
he had extensive experience and knowledge of the usunl procedures for carting sheep in South
Westein Australia. His father had been employed by the defendant as a truck driver carting
livestock and the plaintiff had learnt some of the procedures front hint. He gained further loiowledge
and experience as a consequence of Ins own employment in the industry. However, he had not
beendirectly employed in the industry since 1982. When, in tins judgment, I use the word
"mdustiy” I am referring to the business of sheep carting or transporting by road in Western
Australia.
9 In 1988 Mr Cavanagh married his wife, Faunn. and they subsequently lind two cluldren who are now
14 and 11.
10 The plaintiff enjoyed some sporting activities, including squash and occasional polo crosse. Other
sporting
 activities were crtrtailed because ofprevioiis injuries. The issue of the plaintiff’s previous injuries will
be dealt with in more detail later in this judgment.
i i In 1994 the plaintiff reconmienced work with the defendant as a truck driver, carting livestock
(including sheep). grain and fertiliser. His responsibilities, when carting sheep, included loading
sheep into four deck crates, looking after their welfare dining transpon and unloading the sheep at
their destination. Further duties included washing the sheep crates and track. It was also his
responsibility to maintain Ins truck but the prime mover. trailers and sheep crates were the
defendant’s property.
12 To assist in handling the sheep the plaintiff lind an electric prodder and a dog. At the time of the fall
Mr Cavanagh had bori’owed his brother-in-law’s dog as his dog was tii’ed. Mr Cavanagli sometimes
lind the assistance of the sheep owners when loading and unloading the sheep, but often he was
required to perform his duties alone. This was not unusiuil throughout the industry.
On the afternoon of 13 December 1995 Mr Cavanagh loaded two trailers of wethers for transpoiTmg
to Peel's feed lot at Mundijong. The trailers and sheep crates he was provided with were of the same
design as most used in the Western Australian industry. Each trailer was fitted with a four-deck crate.
Three decks were enclosed and the top deck was open. Each deck of a crate was divided
longittidinally and latittidinally intopeiis. The wethers were fat and therefore, heavy. The plaintiff
was assisted in loading the sheep by the farmer and his helper. He also had the assistance of two dogs.
It was a very hot afternoon and Mr Cavanagh became dehydrated. After loading. lie drove into
Kojoiiup, a distance of approximately 40 kilometres. The plaintiff lind dinner at home and changed
his clothes. He their drove the prime mover, pulling the two trailers. to Mundijong where lie arrived at
approximately 11.30 pin. He was reqiured to leave one trailer in a siding outside of Miindijoiig and he
drove the other to Peel’s feed lot. After clieclnng the sheep he went to sleep in the brink of the
prime mover. He awoke at around 5-5.30 am. He again checked the sheep in that trailer and
unloaded it. Mr Cavanngh then drove back to the siding and exchanged the empty trailer for the
trailer still containing sheep. He drove back to the feed lot and commenced unloading the second
trailer.
14 In accordance with his usual practice, lie unloaded the two lower decks and commenced unloading the
third deck of the crate. The fixed rump at the feed lot was only the height of the second deck of
the crate. Consequently, it was necessary to lower a rainp from the back right hand side of the
third deck onto the second deck to enable the sheep on the third deck to exit the crate via the fixed
rainp. There was a winch on the back of the track for the purpose of lowering the rump. In accordance
with his and industry practice the plaintiff accessed the winch by climbing up the back of the trailer.
In order to unload the sheep it was also necessary to climb the sides of the crate to verbally direct
the sheep and lus dog and to prod and push the sheep towards the rear of the trailer. This was
also standard industry practice.
15 The sides of the crate are comprised of horizontal slats and vertical stru.ts. At the level of the flooring
of each deck there are slats of substantial width, known as kick plates. The sides of each deck
linve tWO narrower horizontal slats above the kick plates. The height of each deck is 3. 1 inches. Mr
Cavanngh used the slats and kick plates to climb up and along the sides of the crate. This again is
standard industry practice. He was not supported by any external platform whilst doing this and
neither did he wear a harness. External platforms and harnesses were not in use in the industry, at
all, at tins tune.
16 Mr Cavanagh unloaded the right hand side of the third deck of the trailer. He then moved to the left
hand
side and commenced unloading what is known as the silly pen. ten is used throughout the industry
to refer to the pen at the rear of the left hand side of the third deck. It is refeiTed to as the silly
pen because the peculiar nature of tins pen is that in order to unload the sheep from it it is necessary
to get them to move forward towards the centre of the crate to exit the pen through its gate.The
sheep their linve to do a U tuni and exit the crnte via the rainp at the rear of the iight hand side of
the trailer. It is difficult to persuade the sheep in the silly pen to execute these manoeuvres as they
can see the other sheep exiting at the back of the trailer and therefore they want to leave the silly pen
through the rear of the silly pen and not by way of a gate in the centre of the body of the tuck.
17 Mr Cavanagh unloaded all but two of the sheep flour the silly pen. The fiiinl two sheep would not
come out and his dog, who was tired, could not persuade them to move in the iiglit direction. The
plaintiff climbed up the left linnd side of the crnte and stood on a slat along side the silly pen. He
unsuccessfully used the prodder to try and persuade the sheep to move.
la The plaintiff had Ins feet on the kick plate or a horizontal slat forming part of the side of the second
deck crate and his hands were on a higher slat beside the silly pen. He moved backwards and
forwards along the slats. When lie was unsuccessful in moving the sheep with the prodder, the
plaintiff opened a gate which
 was on the outside of the silly pen and coinpiised part of the side of the crate. He leaned through the
open gate into the silly pen. His waist was about level with the floor of the silly pen. This meant
that his feet were approximately 2.5 metres from the groimd. He successfully pushed one of the sheep
out of the silly pen. He then reached for the second sheep and it turned and charged at liim He
saw the sheep charging when it was about two and a linlf feet away front him. He put his head down
to protect Ins face. The sheep pushed the plaintiff off the side of the crate and lie fell to the ground.
The next thing the plaintiff recalled was the moment before lie Int the ground. At tlint point he tinned
to his left and he hit the ground on his left side. The plaintiff recalls that his left foot fii’st hit the
ground and lms right foot trailed his left. He said "he was going ai’ound onto” his left shoulder. The
sheep did not fall front the crate.
i9 The plaintiff was in considerable pain and was writhing on the bitumen. He was moved away from
his tuck and someone put liiui into a coma position. He waited for appi’oxiinately 20 minutes
until an aiiibulance arrived. He was in considei’able pain and felt like Ins head wasabout to explode.
He does not loiow if he lost consciousness. His left foot was causing considerable pain. He told Mr
Syniiugton, a driver who had come to lms aid immediately after the fall. that he had hurt his back
and head. Mr Syinington noticed a bit of blood on Ins head but no obvious wound.
2o The plaintiff was taken to Kojontip Hospital where his left ankle was plastered. He was discharged
and went home. That same night he went to Albany Hospital and lus ankle was operated on the
following day. The issues relating to Ins injiuies will be dealt with later in this judgment.
2i The plaintiff had not received any insmiction or training as to the safe system for performing his
work. He. no doubt like most others in his situation, had learnt the job by observing others, from
doing it limiself and by working out for himself the most efficient way to perform the job. He had not
been provided with any safety equipment by the defendant.
22 As I have already stated it was standard industry practice for drivers whilst standing on the
horizontal slats to manually prod or handle the sheep. This is despite the working height and the
presence of excrement and urine on the edges of the slats making thenL at times. slippery. It was not
always practical to get into the crates on the first to third decks in order to remove sheep as the
decks were only 31 inches lugh and the Mooring of the crates was rough. slippery and dirty. I
accept that the plaintiff lind seen his father and other tuck drivers using the gate at the side of the silly
pen to manually handle sheep as he did on this occasion. I also accept that it was something tlint the
plaintiff regularly did. There is insufficient evidence to enable me to conclude that it was a system
of work approved of by the defendant. It is clearly a dangerous practice as there is ae obvious
risk of sheep pushing or charging a worker whilst they are in a precaiious position some height off
the ground. The plaintiff was aware of the possibility of sheep charging him whilst he unloaded them.
He acknowledged tlint that was more likely to occur when sheep were stressed but lie said that he
had seen it when they were not stressed. He claimed that when lie used the silly pen on tliis
occasion he was not aware of the risk of the sheep charging liiin. Tlus is inconsistent with his
and other evidence regarding the behaviors of sheep.

Expert evidenre as to liabili

[To simplify the. jurlgement, expert m irleiice pro›’irlerl Ing Dr Stephen Ches Hi//irirn Jack Apgar
Martin Eric Siinnis John Hi//irirn Lapsi’orth has been renio› ed from this Case Note. Question ]

Liabili of the defendant

8 i The defendant was under a duty of care to the plaintiff, its employee. to use reasonable care in
organizing its work so as to avoid or minunisetlie risk of injury to the plaintiff arising front the
nature of its work: Sutherland Sltire Council v Heyman (1985) 59 ALJR 564. 60 ALR 1. In other
words it was iuider a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid or minimise a foreseeable risk of
injury to the plaintiff.
82 Applying that principle I Hurd that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiff arising from
the nattue of the defendant’s work. The iisk is obvious in that the plaintiff was required to unload
sheep from the silly pen whilst inside the crate in cramped slippery conditions or to unload them
whilst worlnng on the outside of the crate at height. During tins latter procedure it was foreseeable
that the plaintiff would open the gate on the side of the silly pen and attempt to physically move
the sheep in the pen. In such a procedure there is ae obvious and I find, wellknown risk of sheep
charging or kuoclnng their worker. If they do there is a iisk of the worker falling and being
injured.
83 These findings are supported by the evidence of the plaintiff and all the experts, whether they be
engineers, experienced drivers or sheep crate manefacterers. Fiuiher, the application of coiniuon sense
to the facts suppon these findings.
84 The law requires the defendant to take reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff. The
relevant question is what would reasonable employer do by way of response to the risk so as to avoid
unnecessary iisks of injuiy and to mii se other iisks of injury? This question is to be answered having
regard to the magnitude of the risk, the degree of probability of it occiunag. the expense, difficulty and
inconvenience of taking alleviating action and any other condictiiig i’espoiisibilities which the
defendant niny have had: lf“yong Sltire Gounril v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 48 per Mason J and at
52 per Wilson J.
8f The magnitude of the risk of injury from a worker falling froiii the outside of a crate at height is
significant. This is because an imexpected fall front a height of 2 metres or more is obviously
sufficient to seriously injure a person. This was proved by the serious injuries that the plaintiff
received in tins fall as well as by the serious injuries that Mr Keen received when lie fell. I
acknowledge that the ningiuttide of the iisk will not always be realised and, as Mr Symiiigtoii sai‹1
workers sometimes fall off crates and are not injiued.
86 The degree of probability of an accident occurring is moderate. I base this finding on the evidence
that I heard front the experienced sheep carters of their own experiences of falling off crates and also
of other accidents they lind witnessed. The degree of probability of an accident occurring involving
serious injuries is, in my view, more than slight as proven by the evidence of Mr Keen, Mr
Syniiugton and the plaintiff as to injuries they had received in such falls.
87 The real question in this case is what were the difficulties and inconvenience of taking action to
remove or minmuse the risks of injury? The defendant’s case is that none of the means of alleviating
the risk proposed by the plaintiff were practical or available at the tune of the accident. Further, the
defendant submits that. as the plaintiff was an experienced sheep carter, it was unnecessary for the
defendant to warn him of the iisk of injury or to insmict liiui as to how he should perfonn liisjob.
88 These submissions and the evidence suppoiTmg them are a good answer to some, but not all, of
the particulars of negligence. I accept tlint it was not negligent for the defendant to require the
plaintiff to ofdoad sheep without a safety harness. The evidence proves that in 1995 safety harnesses
had not been thought of or developed for use in the industry, or the Australian industry. Further, the
evidence is clear that it has taken years for an appropiiate harness to be developed for use in the
industry. In this respect I do not accept Mr Apgar's evidence to the effect tlint the implementation of
a hairiest system would be simple and easy. Rnther, I accept the evidence of Mr Donne and Mr
McDonald that the development of a safe and practical harness system, that would be rated by
the manufacturer of the system for use in the industry, has been. a very tune consuming and lengthy
process. In those circumstances it was not practical for the defendant to have required the plaintiff to
use a safety harness when offloading sheep from a height on the outside of a crate.
89 For similar reasons, it was not practical for the defendant to provide the plaintiff with a suitable
scaffold, ladder, platfoniL walkway or lift to facilitate the safe unloading of sheep from a crate.
First, it was not practical to require the defendant to provide a pennaneiit piece of equipment at
another business’s premises for such a purpose. Secondly, the evidence proves that a safe and
practical scaffold, ladder, platform. walkway or lift had not been developed in 1995 and thus it
was not practical to expect the defendant to provide one. The narrow walkway that I saw being
demonstrated on the video may well be a prototype for an appropiiate walkway but its safety
limitations were obvious, and acknowledged by Mr Apgar. A walkway of that type would not. in my
opinion, be a means of alleviating or reducing the risks of

90 I also accept that the plaintiff lins failed to prove its particular of negligence tlint the defendant failed
to provide the plaintiff with adequate manpower to assist liiui unloading the sheep. There is no
evidence tlint additional manpower would linve reduced or alleviated the risk of injury. I have also
taken into accoiuit that the overwhelming evidence is that the unloading of sheep at feed lots and
similar places is a job that is universally done by the driver alone.
91 I further Hurd that it was not negligent of the defendant to fail to supervise the plaintiff in his
system of unloading sheep. The plaintiff was an experienced livestock carter and it was not
reasonable to expect the defendant to supervise such an experienced employee.
92 However, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant was negligent in
failing to instinct or train the plaintiff in a safe system of unloading sheep and in failing to warn
the plaintiff
 of the danger of injury arising from unloading sheep in the mariner he did on tliis occasion.
93 The defendant lind a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff. The defendant could not discharge
tliis duty merely by employing the plaintiff as an experienced livestock carter and leaving it
entirely up to the plaintiff to devise a safe systems of work for perfonniug his job.
94 To the defendant's loiowledge the plaintiff had not had any traiiiingin how to perform lus work when
he was initially employed in the industry in 1981 by the defendant. Neither did the defendant
provide supervision, instruction or training to the plaintiff when he was re-employed in 1994 after a
considerable amount of time out of the industry. I accept that. generally speaking, it is not negligent
for an employer to fail to supervise, ti’ain or instruct an experienced worker’, or to warn such a
worker in respect to iisks of injury that are obvious and of which he is, in fact. already fully aware.
These general principles applies unless it is apparent that the worker is nicking a practice of
ignoring an obvious danger: MrLean’s Ref len Cruises Pty Lttl v McEwan (1984) 54ALR 3 at
7.
95 In my opinion a reasonable employer would have taken some steps, by iiutial supervision, observation
or training. of the plaintiff to ensure that Ins basic method or system of work was as safe as
reasonably possible. If it was shown to be the case. and I believe it would have been, that the plaintiff
was ignoring ae obvious danger because lie was regularly employing a system of work that was unsafe
and unnecessary, the employer should have taken steps to warn the plaintiff of the risk and to train
or instruct him in ways of avoiding that system of work.
96 Consequently, in order to discharge its duty of care to the plaintiff. the defendant upon re-employing
the plaintiff in 1994, should have conducted some iiutial supervision, observation or enquiry of the
plaintiff to ensure that his system of work was not exposing liiin to iuinecessary risk or that he
was not ignoring obvious risks. Such supervision, observation or enquiry would have disclosed
that the plaintiff was routinely opening the gate of the silly pen on the third deck and inserting his
torso into the silly pen without
maintaining a safe hold on the crate. unsafe system of work was sufficiently common place, as
proven
by the evidence of Mr Syniiugton, Mr Hmdmarsli and the plaintiff. to warrant the defendant being
aware of the possibility that the plaintiff may use it. The defendant should have then specifically
warned the plaintiff of the dangers of doing so and instructed or trained hint in a system of work
that avoided tlint unsafe system. Such a system inay have been not to attempt to empty the silly
pen from the outside of the crate. but rather to get inside the crate to remove the sheep. or to
remove Ins dog and wait until it and the sheep had rested before recommencing the task or not to
use the silly pen when transpoiTing wethers. It could have also involved instructions to the plaintiff
to ensure tlint a three point hold was maintained on the crateat all times whilst lie was working
on the outside of the crate.
97 The defendant submits that these were not alternative safer systems of work. I do not accept this
submission. In this respect I rely upon the evidence of Mr Syinmgton to the effect that since the
plaintiffs accidentlie has not adopted the plaintiffs system for removing sheep front the silly pen.
Whilst I acknowledge, as he did that there are risks involved in the system of work he now employs, I
accept his view as an experienced act in my opinion, responsible and reasonable worker and
employer, that the system lie now uses reduces the risks involved in the task because he cannot
fall as far. I also accept and rely upon the evidence of Mr Keen to the elTect that he has never
employed the system of work that the plaintiff used because of its obvious dangers. Yet. it appears
from the evidence, that lie lins nonetheless managed to safely empty silly pens in the course of his
work.
98 I further accept and rely upon Mr Symiiigton's evidence in that it proves wlint a reasonable employer
can do to alleviate or reduce iisks in the industry. Whilst Mr Syiningtoii only introduced these
changes after the plaintiffs accident. the risk assessment procedure he uses is well loiown and
straightforward. There is no reason why the defendant could not have employed it piior to the
plaintiffs accident.
99 The expense, difficulty and mcoiiveiuence in taking the above action was insignificant when
compared to the risk of injury. If the defendant had taken these steps then it would linve
prevented the injiuy to the plaintiff or significantly reduced the risk of such injury.
100 The plaintiff also submits that the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with a safe system of work
in so far as the defendant used fixed deck crates rnther than convertible crates. Oe the basis of the
evidence I conclude that a convertible crate of the type manufactured by Mr Shrinks' business
alleviates or reduces the iisk of injury because it enables the sillypen to be emptied with the
worker standing at full height on the third deckinside the crate. The cross-examination of Mr Shacks
did not convince me that the convertible crates posed any significantly greater risks of injury than
the fixed crates that would outweigh the
 alleviation or i’eductioii in risk due to workers being able to stand at fiill height and unload sheep
from within the crate.
ioi The issue rnised by the defence with respect to the use of the convertible crates is that they were not
in coinmoii use in the industry in 1995. The evidence establishes that there were some coiwertible
crntes in use in Western Austi’alia at that time and some more have been introduced but they are
still not the common design of crate in Western Australia. The question then is whether it was
negligent of the defendant not to use such a crate when it was not common industry practice to
do so. On the basis of the evidence produced at trial I am not satisfied that this raises questions
of expeiise, difficulty and inconvenience. Mr’ Shark said tlint convertible ci’ates were iiiore expensive
than fixed deck crates but there is no evidence that they were prohibitively more expensive. There
was some evidence that the convertible crntes were ‹ti&celt and mcoiiveiuent to use because they
did not have a drainage system. However, the evidence of Mr Shacks and Mr Syinington does not
persuade rue that the difficulty and inconvenience is such as to negate the practical use of the
convertible crate. The evidence was that once farmers became used to draining their sheep prior to
transport the lack of a drainage system in the crate was not a problem.
io2 The crucial question is whether, if the defendant was complying with standard or coniinon industry
practice by using fixed deck crntes. it can besaid that it was in breach of its duty to the plaintiff
in so doing?
103 I am not prepared to find that the defendant, in using fixed deckcrates as opposed to convertible
crates. was in breach of its duty of care to the plaintiff. To so Hurd would require a Guiding that what
the industry regarded as reasonable fell short of discharging the duty of reasonable care. Whilst it may
be that I would be entitled to make such a Guiding I am loathe to do so in the face of the
overwhelming evidence tlint fixed crates were the industry standard. However, if. as in this case. ae
employer chooses to use fixed deck crates tlint places a responsibility on the employer to ensure that
the system of work used by employees is such as to alleviate or reduce the risks inherent in the use
of fixed deck crates.It is in this respect that the defendant has failed in its duty of care to the
plaintiff.
ion Hnving concluded that the defendant is liable in negligence to the plaintiff there is no need for me
to innke findings in respect to the allegations of breach of statutory duty and breach of contract
and I will not do

Contributory negligence
io5 The defendant has pleaded tlint if it was negligent the plaintiff caused or contributed to his loss or
damage by his own negligence. The particulars of contributory negligence are pleaded in the
following terms:
"The Plaintiff was negligent in that he:
(a) loiew or ought to linve loiown, by reason of his experience. that if he were to
insert the upper linlf of his body into the stock crate of the trailer, he would be
putting himself into a potentially dangerous position, because one or iiiore of the
sheep in the stock crnte might charge or jump at hun:
#) inserted the upper half of lus body into the stock crate when lie loiew or ought
to have loiown, by reason of his experience. that he had no reason to do so.
because:
(i) lie could have approached the sheep inside the stock crate externally
front the rear of the trailer: and/or
(ii) lie could linve used an electric prodder or sheep dog (which was
provided to liiui by the Defendant) to move the sheep in the stock
crate.
(c) opened the side gate of the stock crate to encourage the two remaining sheep to
exit the stock crnte when he knewor ought to linve loiown, by reason of lms
experience. that tliis was not a safe practice, because one or more of the sheep
might charge or jump at liiin.
in the premises. exposed himself to danger when he knew or ought to have known.
by reason of his experience, tlint such an action was both unnecessary and
 potentially unsafe."
io6 The pleading is contrary to the defendant’s case. in that the defendant's case is that there was no safe
 alternative to the system of work that the plaintiff employed. Leaving tlint issue to one side, the
difficulty I have in finding that the plaintiff contributed to lms loss or’ dnmage is that there is
evidence from Mr Syniington that prior to the plaintiiTs fall lie used the same unsafe system of work
tlint caused the plaintiffs fall. Mr Syiningtoii was. and is, an experienced and reasonable worker.
Also, there is uncontroveiTed evidence tlint the plaintiff had seen lms father and others use the
system on numerous occasioiis, and he himself had used it in the past.
107 This is not an issue as to whether the plaintiff was inadvenent or negligent. The plaintiff deliberately,
and not inadvertently, employed the relevant systems. The question is whether in all the
circumstances when doing so he failed to take reasonable cai’e for his own safety?
108 Although reasonableness is an objective test it must be judged in the light of the known
circumstances. These, in my view, include the fact that the defendant had not provided any warnings,
instruction or training in relation to the appropriate safe system of work. that the plaintiff had seen
other workers, including his father, employ the same system and it was also a system which Mr
Syniington sometimes used. Further, although as I have found there were other safer systems to
employ. those other systems involve some risks and the plaintiff had been left to lits owe devices to
work out the safest system for himself.
109 Against the background of these circumstances. it lins not been proven tlint the plaintiff was
contribiitorily negligent in opening the external gate of the silly pen and leaving into the silly pen in
an attempt to unload the sheep.
[The jurlge’s analyses on rlaniageLariii is renim’erl from r/iii Case. Note Question. Please rlo not rritiri-e.
the jurlges analyses on this issue]