Was Transfield vicariously liable for ATS?
• The plaintiff by way of Notice of Contention sought to support the trial judge’s verdict on the basis that Transfield was vicariously liable for the negligence of ATS. • The plaintiff argued that the removal of the shrink wrap was a task that was necessarily delegated by Transfield to ATS if the safety strop was to be visually inspected throughout its length. Referring to Jordan CJ in Torette House, the plaintiff submitted that someone who engages an independent contractor can be liable because “the very act or omission which caused the plaintiff’s injury was necessarily involved in the performance of the contract with Transfield”. • Campbell JA held even if it were the case that Transfield had directed ATS to usually survey the extremities of the cable, it was the failure to remove the shrink wrap and not carrying out the task that had been directed that was a cause of the damage. As such Campbell JA held that the general test articulated by Jordon CJ in Torrette House for vicarious
