In the High Court it was argued that ‘something that is a result of an impact’ should be construed as being a thing which ‘has an immediate (or reasonably immediate) temporal, geographical and relational connection with an impact’. It was argued that the chain of causation was too remote to apply to the plaintiff who, as a well trained worker, had attended the scene fully appreciating the danger from the damaged conductor. In a unanimous decision the High Court (comprising Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Bell) rejected these arguments.
WTF...Was this written by Kevin Rudd ??
I read it three times and still can't understand what it means
Can someone translate ?