Injuries From Crop Dusting Accident

In August the High Court of Australia dismissed appeals by ACQ Pty Ltd and Aircair Moree Pty Ltd, the owner and operator respectively of a crop dusting aircraft, against a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal upholding an award of damages in favour of Mr Cook, an employee of NorthPower (now Country Energy).

In December 2000 the aircraft was crop dusting a cotton field over which a high voltage conductor hung at a height of about 6.2m. In flight, the aircraft struck the conductor which was dislodged from the supporting pole and left hanging 1.5m above the ground. NorthPower sent two employees to deal with the dislodged conductor; the two employees agreed that one would drive to a site about 7km away to isolate the conductor after which Mr Cook would commence an assessment of the situation in the field. Despite this Mr Cook entered the field before the conductor had been isolated, and stumbled in muddy conditions near the conductor receiving an electric shock and being badly injured.

The Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 (Cth) provides that both the operator and owner of an aircraft are liable if a person suffers injury caused by something that is the result of an impact with an aircraft that was in flight immediately before the impact happens. The Act also provides that damages are recoverable from both the owner and operator of the aircraft in respect of such an injury without the injured person having to prove that the injury had been caused by the owner’s and the operator’s wilful actions, negligence or default.

Mr Cook sued for damages and was awarded $953,141.00. The NSW Court of Appeal rejected ACQ’s and Aircair’s appeals, as did the High Court.

The issue was what had "caused" Mr Cook to suffer injury. ACQ and Aircair acknowledged that Mr Cook would not have been in the field except for the aircraft impacting the conductor. But they argued that there would have been no danger to Mr Cook if he had waited until the conductor had been isolated. They argued that there was not a close enough temporal, geographical and relational connection between the dislodgement of the conductor and Mr Cook’s injuries.

These arguments were rejected by the High Court which concluded that Mr Cook’s injuries were caused by the dangerous position of the conductor which was the result of the aircraft impact.

(Source – Manager, Public Information, High Court)