Melbourne Electric Supply Co Ltd v Ogden [1918] HCA 7; (1918) 24 CLR 303 (28 February 1918)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Melbourne Electric Supply Company Limited Defendants, Appellants; and Ogden Plaintiff, Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

28 February 1918

Barton, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ.

Starke (with him Dethridge), for the appellants.

Owen Dixon, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court, which was read by Gavan Duffy J., was as follows:—

Feb. 28

Barton, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ.

This case was tried before a Judge of the County Court with a jury. The jury did not find any general verdict, but answered certain questions submitted to them, and on these findings the Judge entered judgment for the plaintiff for £396 8s. The defendant Company then applied to the Judge for a new trial on the ground, among others, that the findings of the jury were against the evidence and the weight of the evidence. The Judge refused to grant a new trial, and the defendant Company appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria. That Court dismissed the appeal, and the defendant Company then appealed to this Court. The judgments delivered in the Supreme Court contain a learned and elaborate discussion of the law with respect to the liability of employers for defects in their plants and premises causing injury to their employees, but argument before us was confined to the meaning and effect of a finding of the jury that the defendant Company did not take reasonable care to provide a proper supervision of the poles in their use and control, and to the question whether there was sufficient evidence to support that finding. It was urged that the meaning of the finding was that the poles were not in fact examined with sufficient care for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were in a defective condition, and that the default found, being that of one Walker, a fellow servant of the plaintiff, did not give him a cause of action at common law. In our opinion it is not merely a finding that the person entrusted with the duty of inspecting the poles did not carry out that duty with sufficient care, but is a finding that the Company itself did not adopt a reasonably effective method or system of inspection. We think there is ample evidence to support the finding so interpreted, and the result is that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitor for the appellants, C. J. McFarlane.

Solicitor for the respondent, A. J. Price.