Template:Did you know nominations/R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd
- ... that the decision of R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd involved a construction worker falling to his death? Source: A journal article named, 'Clothing Manufacturing Supply Chains, Contractual Layers and Hold Harmless Clauses: How OHS Duties Can Be Imposed over Retailers' available for free at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804771
Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 01:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- First, dull hook ... this is hardly the only prosecution or lawsuit in any common-law country, much less Australia, to involve this sort of workplace fatality. Second, sloppily written: "the death of a construction worker falling to his death". Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Harsh...but fair enough Daniel Case. Thanks for pointing out I used the word death twice. Happy to use "involved a construction worker falling to his death". You say this would be dull, do you have an idea for an alternative? I'd be happy to have one put to me. I thought it would be interesting.
- Daniel Case - please would you consider a second look at this? Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- ALT hook - ... that the High Court of Australia refused to hear an appeal of the decision made in R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd? (Source: Harpur 2011 in article).
- Thanks for pinging me. Again, this one is a dull hook ... it's not unusual for courts of last resort in common-law countries to turn cases down.
Looking over the article, what I think would work is the holding here that a contractor can be held liable for injuries to another contractor's employee on the same project if it is negligent. Give me a little time to think of clear wording ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case - please would you consider a second look at this? Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This article needs a full review, since one has not been completed. Flibirigit (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I genuinely don't know if I'm allowed to review this, as the QPQ given is for one of my nominations. I might as well try, given that this is the oldest unreviewed nomination.
- New enough, long enough. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. I might be inclined to approve something like ALT2: ... that R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd examined the liability of an electrocuted construction worker?, but Daniel Case promised 'clear wording', so I'd like to hear what he or you have to say first.--Launchballer 23:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I have neglected this for so long. Here's the hook I think would really (ahem) catch an eye:
- ALT3: ... that in R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd the Victorian Court of Appeal held that workers do not need to be employed by a company to hold it liable for safety violations? Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I have neglected this for so long. Here's the hook I think would really (ahem) catch an eye:
