RMIT Vietnam – SGS

ASSIGNMENT COVER PAGE

Course code and name LAW2447 Commercial Law

Assessment name Individual Assignment (Case Note)

Lecturer Nguyen Tan Son

Student name Nguyen Phu Binh

Student ID S3818560

Word count
I. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the case of Cavanagh v Syd Mattliews & Co Pty Ltd, a
case ruled by the District Court of Western Australia in 2004.

This study is separated into three stages in an attempt to better understand the judges' decision on
persuasion: Identification of legal issues, Analysis of the Judge's application of the legal rules to
solve the legal issues, and Conclusion.

II. Identification of legal issues

Mr. Cavanagh, the plaintiff, in this case, is a truck driver, carting livestock and grain fertilizer at
the defendant’s farm, Syd Mattliews & Co Pty Ltd. The incident occurred on December 13,
1995, when the plaintiff fell from a sheep box while working for the defendant. According to the
plaintiff, he was not warned or trained to anticipate these consequences when the sheep lunged at
him and fell from a height of about two meters.
This article addresses three legal issues: whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
to take reasonable precautions to avoid the foreseen risk of injury; whether the defendant
breached its responsibility to the plaintiff by failing to conform with industry standards or
customary practice; and whether the employee takes adequate precautions to ensure his safety.

III. Analysis of the Judge's application of the legal rules to solve the legal issues
1. Duty of care
As far as I can tell, the defendant is the one who hired the plaintiff to do the work, and I agree
with the judge that this is the employer-employee relationship. As a result, the defendant had a
duty of care to the plaintiff. 1 
2. Breach of standard of care
Next, four factors of the Standard of care (S.O.C) must be considered in assessing whether the
defendant has breached the duty of care, including Probability of harm, the likely seriousness of
2
harm, the cost of precaution, and the social utility. Firstly, I did not entirely agree with the
judge and believe the Probability of harm is quite high. Despite some adept shepherds have

1
N James, Business Law (Wiley, 2014) 220.
2
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850.
mastered their craft, some records showed that they still suffer slips and other mishaps. 3Second,
the judge's statement was convincingly true because falling from a height of 2 meters or more
could cause dramatic physical damage to the victim’s body. Therefore, the likely seriousness of
harm was high in this case since the plaintiff was seriously hurt and unconscious. 4Third, in
terms of the cost of precaution, I agree with the judge that the cost, complexity, and
inconvenience of taking action to reduce the threat were minor when compared to the risk of
injury. Although there is compelling evidence that in 1955, there were obstacles to the
development and provision of the appropriate safety gear. However, as a precaution against
problems in the workplace, there is no excuse for an employer not to train their people as the
employer has to do so. When it is practicable and relatively simple to reduce the number of
occupational accidents, I wholeheartedly support the above suggestions. 5Last, the judge did not
discuss social utility, which is perhaps understood given that this is not an interpersonal
advantage. Therefore, I'll include the judge's point that this case has no social utility.
Conclusively, the employee was able to show that the appellant had failed to warn him of a risk
and that the risk had caused him harm. 6Hence, the employer violated the Duty of care by failing
to meet the required Standard of care.
3. Contributory Negligence
In terms of the appeal, the employers made arguments about the employees were negligent in
their work and set up questions that whether the employee takes adequate precautions to ensure
his safety, but the court dismissed this claim. I can completely understand this judge's decision
because, as previously stated, the personnel received no notice or instruction prior to the risk of
injury. 7Thus, I agree the appeal is dismissed.

IV. Conclusion
Finally, the judge determined that the defendant had failed to meet the standard of care and that
Syd Mattliews & Co Pty Ltd had committed a tort of negligence against Mr. Cavarnagh. In
addition, the appeal decisions are also dismissed and the employer will be fully responsible to the
plaintiff. In my point of view, these decisions are appropriate and reasonable.

3
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367.
4
Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
5
Watt V Hertfordshire CC [1954] 1 WLR 835
6
Rowe v McCartney [1976] 2 NSWLR 72
7
Ingram v Britten [1994] Aust Torts Reports 81-291