Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co. Ltd

Case Analysis

Student

Course

University

Introduction

This case analysis aims towards the court decision based on the law of Negligence -

Vicarious liability - Employee or independent contractor, Supervision - Control - Logging

operations - Trucker injured by negligence of snigger - Liability of sawmiller for whom both

performed work - Independent contractor - Liability of principal for injury sustained in

performing work - Extra-hazardous activities - Safe system of work - Duty of principal to

provide - Breach of duty. Sawmiller the appellant of the case has its business of loading the

trees to the mills for further work. Snigger and truckers have their own timing for work and to

deliver the timber to the mill and getting paid for the same. As the tuckers and sniggers were

not the official employee of the company and also the company didn’t deduct the taxes from

the payments and the sniggers and truckers were free to go anywhere to find another work.

One day the truckers got injured and ask for the compensation from the company, which was

denied by the company as sniggers and truckers were not the employee of the company. So

this case is a result of the appellant by the company and by the truckers as being a

independent contractor law. This report is the analysis of the same case as the decision of the

court for the same.

State relevant facts and identify relevant issues

The case is because of the independent contractor or operations activities where the truckers

are got injured and asked for the compensation from the company. The facts are such as the

sniggers and truckers are not the official employees of the company and they deliver the

timber to the mill where there are some chances of injury as well. The company didn’t ask for

the taxes from the payment they get for the work done. It is the responsibility of the company

if any employee is attached with the company either official or as independent contractor but

here company denied the fact as motioning that the person is not a employee of the company.

So the problem is as the truckers need the compensation as truckers got injured but the

company is denying the facts saying as non-employee. So there are two main issues in the

case as based on the legal facts the independent contractor are also responsible for the

compensation and other facilities if they are working in known injured places and company

also saying the facts that as being a non employer the truckers and sniggers, the company is

no longer responsible for any kind of injuries.

Identify the ratio/rationes

The court applied the legal principles in deciding the case or reach to the final decision. The

legal principles include the negligence, independent contractor, supervision of the logging

operations, hazardous activities, breach of duty etc. Employee or independent contractor

seems as similar but in general the contract of service and independent contract are not

similar in any way. Employee have the contract of service and legally bound to the

company’s policies but the independent contractor is not legally bounded to the company,

and called as contract of services. Humber stone v. Northern Timber Mills (1949), 79 C.L.R.

389 and Australian Mutual Provident Society v. Chaplin (1978), 18 A.L.R. 385, law is

applied by the court. The court applied the independent contractor law while deciding the

final decision. [19781 A.C. 728, this law was applied for the case and also the whole decision

was based on the Independent Contractors Act 2006.

The court referred to Australian Mutual Provident Society v. Chaplin (20). The court

explained that the doctrine of extra-hazardous activities is not part of the common law:

Torette House Pty. Ltd. v. Berkman (21); Stoneman v. Lyons (22). So these laws were

applied by the court while making the decision for the Sawmiller and the injured truckers

case against the Sawmiller.

Evaluate and analyse the court’s decision

Based on the legal principles for the independent contractor and to the injured during the

operation logging of timber, the court reached to the decision. The court explained that even

through the company didn’t ask for the taxes from the contractor or independent contractor

still there is a right of the contractor if the work in hazardous places the company have the

responsibility to take care of any kind of incidents happening. Under the law this is the not

claimed by the company as right based on the facts. The operation logging in hazardous

places comes under the safety and injury law so the decision of the truckers and sniggers

against the company is right. The court dismissed the appeal of Mr. Gray operation officer of

the company in regard the company law against the independent contractors. (1953]1 Q.B.

248, at p. 295 based on this appeal the court decided the decision in favour of the truckers. (68)

(1984) 154 C.L.R., at pp. 677-678 this statement also signify the statement of the truckers and

sniggers against the company.

The court found suitable the statement and appeal by the tuckers and sniggers against the

company that was misleading to the independent contractors. In my opinion as this is the

responsibility of the company to take care not only to the employees but also to the

independent contractors if mainly they are working the hazardous activities which might

cause injuries or else any time.

Reach a conclusion

The above discussed evolution and analysis of the case by the truckers and sniggers against

the company states that the final decision should be in favor of the truckers and sniggers.

Based on the arguments and facts by the both appellant and followed by the legal principles

of law for the case, the final decision of the court was in favor of the truckers because as

court said the company didn’t provide any system for safety while working in hazardous

activities. The company was in breach of the duty to take reasonable care. Thus, the final

conclusion is that the decision of the court was right.

References:

1. Marshall v Whittaker’s Building Supply (1963) 109 CLR 210,217 per Windeyer J

2. Fishman, Stephen. 2002. Working for Yourself: Law and Taxes for Independent

Contractors, Freelancers, and Consultants. 4th ed. Berkeley, Calif.: Nolo.

3. Fishman, Stephen 2000. Hiring Independent Contractors: The Employers' Legal

Guide. 3d ed. Berkeley, Calif.: Nolo.

4. Nunnallee, Walter H. 1992. "Why Congress Needs to Fix the Employee/Independent

Contractor Tax Rules." North Carolina Central Law Journal20.

5. Pacynski, Rick A. 1993. "Legal Challenges in Using Independent

Contractors." Michigan Bar Journal 72 (July).

6. Payton, Janet G. 2001. "Checklist for Determining Independent Contractor

Status." Corporate Counsel's Quarterly 17 (October).

7. Ringquist, Neil A. 1997. Independent Contractor or Employee?: A Practioner's

Guide. Chicago: CCH.

8. Sheppard, Lee A. 1999. "Resolving the Independent Contractor Dispute for the

Future." Tax Notes 83 (May): 1282–86.

9. Treasury Department. Internal Revenue Service. 1987. Revenue Ruling 87-41.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

10. Wood, Robert W. 2000. Legal Guide to Independent Contractor Status. 3d ed.

Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Press.