In the recent decision of Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142, the Queensland Supreme Court was required to consider issues of breach of duty of care and causation in a claim for damages for personal injuries. The Plaintiff, Mr Sawyer, suffered a lower back injury in the course of his employment with Cretek Concreting (“Cretek”), while he was working on a residential renovation project under the control of a principal contractor, SWC Constructions (“SWC”).
Facts
The following facts were established at trial:
- Mr Sawyer sustained lower back injury while lifting and handing steel mesh sheets onsite during 2016. This injury was subsequently aggravated when he continued working on other Cretek projects during 2017.
- Cretek was engaged as a specialist concreter to perform concreting works onsite, including laying foundations and a polished concrete slab. Cretek provided SWC only generic Safe Work Method Statements for their work to be performed on the jobsite.
- SWC’s Leading Hand gave evidence:
- he had control over the jobsite and was responsible for ensuring subcontractors’ paperwork was appropriate, realistic and job-specific;
- he was also responsible for ensuring subcontractors’ work would be done in a safe way and that supplied Safe Work Method Statements were complied with.
- SWC’s Sole Director conceded he did not warn Cretek workers about the use of a heavier mesh being used onsite. However, he testified he provided Cretek with plans and specifications for the job and that Cretek knew a heavier mesh than ordinarily used was being installed onsite. He argued that, with that knowledge, it was Cretek’s responsibility to ensure enough workers were available onsite to safely install the mesh.
Issues
- Did SWC owe a duty of care to supervise Mr Sawyer while carrying out his role as an employee of Cretek, which was an independent contractor engaged by SWC to perform specialised works?
- Was there a causal connection between Mr Sawyer’s injuries and the 2016 work event, as opposed to duties he performed over a period of time through to 2017?
Findings
In addressing liability, the Court first traversed existing case law authorities that considered the duty of care owed by principal contractors to subcontractors working on jobsites under their control. The Court found the particular relationships between the parties and the totality of the circumstances must be considered when determining whether a duty of care was owed by the principal contractor. Having regard to the contractual relationship between SWC and Cretek, the nature of the work being performed, the specialist services being provided by Cretek, and the respective responsibilities of SWC and Cretek over the Claimant’s system of work, the Court found the scope of SWC’s duty did not extend to that alleged by Mr Sawyer.
The Court found Cretek breached its duty of care to Mr Sawyer by failing to take necessary precautions to ensure his safety while he performed the duties of his employment. This breach was found to have caused Mr Sawyer’s injury. Additionally, the Court found a direct causal connection between Cretek’s breach of duty and the lower back injury suffered by Mr Sawyer at the residential building project during 2016.
Conclusion
Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd highlights the complexities of assessing duty of care, causation, and contractor liability in construction-related cases. Principal contractors are not usually liable for workers’ injuries onsite unless they actively contribute to the causative breach of duty by failing in their supervisory duties to ensure safe systems of work are implemented and enforced.
Although principal contractors may still be held responsible for workers’ injuries onsite, independent contractors should assess their systems of management and supervision of employees on each building project to ensure adequate precautions against risks are implemented. Additionally, clear contractual arrangements between principal contractors and subcontractors are essential to ensure the allocation of responsibility, risk-sharing, and safety protocols are well-defined. Employers should collaborate with legal advisors to ensure such contracts are structured effectively.
