Tort; Negligence; the duty of care; foreseeability of harm; employers and employee.
Facts: Nuroof undertook to repair a flat roof on top of a six-storey building. The work required the application of molten bitumen, a very hot and sticky substance. Nuroof employed Hamilton as a labourer. His job involved handing heavy buckets of the bitumen up to a person on a higher section of the roof. While Hamilton was passing up one bucketful, it tipped over and the bitumen spilt on Hamilton, severely burning him.
Issue: As Hamilton's employer, did Nuroof owe Hamilton a duty of care in these circumstances?
Decision: The court held that Nuroof owed Hamilton a duty of care.
Reason: Dixon CJ and Kitto J said (at [4]):
"Now two things appear to be undeniable. In the first place there can be no denial of the extremely injurious properties of molten bitumen if it is spilt over any part of the human body. In the second place when a vessel containing forty pounds weight of molten material is raised by hand in front of the body high enough for a handle to be seized by a man above, there must be a greatly increased risk of its spilling whether through mishandling or mistake or mischance and the prospect of serious injury if that happens must be much greater also. After full consideration we find ourselves unable to agree in the view that these are not dangers which are both real and evident and in the view that it is consistent with due care for an employer to disregard the likelihood of their occurrence."