Case studies

Onus of proof

Marshall v Queensland Rehabilitation Services Pty Ltd, 19 June 2012. Claimants will find it difficult to prove negligence against Employers who clearly document staff training, daily interactions and enforce safe systems of work.

Was a breach in duty of care the cause of harm?

Carswell v Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane [2012] QSC, 7 September 2012. This case highlights that even though an employer may have breached their duty of care, the onus is on the worker to prove that the breach was a material cause of the harm suffered by the worker.

No breach of duty where cleaning system enforced

Scott v Jackson Garden Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd 17 February 2015. This decision highlights the importance of an employer not only having in place a system of work, but also maintaining and enforcing that system to guard against risk of injury.

No foreseeable risk of injury

Love v Lindsays Bros Management Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 174 30 August 2013. This case demonstrates an assault would not have been prevented by any steps the employer might have taken, and there was no foreseeable risk of injury.

Future economic loss based on post injury income

Kirchner v ITT Water, 5 November 2010. This case study demonstrates a Court may use post injury income to assess future economic loss

Warning could have prevented injury

Fetu v Northern Iron and Brass Foundry [2013] QDC 330. Worker suffered a shoulder injury when he was working in a primer booth as a spray painter.

Plaintiff unsuccessful in proving liability for slip on a grape

Deans v Maryborough Christian Education Foundation Ltd [2018] QDC 123, 25 July 2018. The plaintiff alleged that the risk of injury as a result of dropped fruit during the fruit break was a foreseeable risk which was not insignificant. The plaintiff also alleged that the employer breached its duty of care by failing to, amongst other things, have in place a system of inspection and cleaning of the foyer during the fruit break.

Employer not liable where Plaintiff failed to perform work in the manner instructed

In November 2006, the plaintiff suffered an injury to both his left hand and arm and developed a secondary psychological injury. He commenced a claim against his former employer for damages and received a gross settlement figure of $475,000.00 in October 2008.

Initial reporting of injury of vital importance

Apolloni v Traffic Technologies Management Division Pty Ltd, 20 March 2012. This case clearly demonstrates the value of contemporaneous recording of injury details in diary notes, incident reports and applications for compensation. In this case the importance of the recording was as to the time of the injury but this could equally apply to the description of the cause of the injury.

Employers have a duty to train and instruct workers on safe truck exiting

Kelleher v J & A Accessories Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 227 - Brisbane Supreme Court. The Plaintiff was a 45 year old sales representative / delivery driver who alleged he sustained lower back and psychiatric injuries as a result of repetitively lifting vehicle batteries weighing over 20kg between 2012 and 2013; and exiting from the cabin of an Isuzu NPR 300 truck on 21 August 2013.

Future economic loss and paid services past retirement age

Cameron v Foster & Lahey T/AS GF Hills Removals & Mini Storage, 29 September 2011. This case study highlights how a Court may rule future economic loss allowances to workers past the age of retirement and make allowances for future paid services that were provided gratuitously by family members.

Clarity for employers on social work functions

ALH v Simon Blackwood (the Regulator) [2014] QIRC 105 13 June 2014 The recent decision from the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission provides further clarity for employers in determining applications for compensation for injuries sustained at social work functions.