Catchwords:

TORTS — negligence — apportionment of responsibility and damages — primary judge held that appellant vicariously liable for injury and breached duty of care owed to respondent — primary judge found no negligence on part of worker’s employer — whether primary judge erred in finding worker’s employer not in breach of duty and liable in damages to respondent such as to entitle appellant to contribution from employer — whether primary judge erred in assessment of non-economic loss by applying a 10% reduction to percentage of most extreme case to reflect for contingency — whether primary judge’s assessment as to past economic loss supported by evidence — whether primary judge’s estimation of working life of 60 years and application of 20 per cent buffer for vicissitudes sufficient to account for fact that surgery brought about by negligence would have been necessary at some point in future in any event