Case studies
Selected filters
Showing 1-12 of 132 results with 1 filter
-
Verbal warning not enough
Samways v WorkCover Queensland & Ors, 28 April 2010. This case study shows that a verbal warning is not sufficient action if there is a reasonable way to isolate a risk and the plaintiff can be liable for contributory negligence
-
Instructions: a direction or mere request?
Vella’s Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Mistranch Pty Ltd & Ors, 29 March 2012. This case highlights the question that needs to be asked in matters where directions are being received from the principal contractor. That is, whether an instruction from a Principal is a mere “request” or is conduct amounting to direction and control of how the work is to be carried out.
-
Previous employment influence
Husband v Hikari Pty Ltd, 22 October 2010. This case study shows that a Judge may award damages despite having a pre-existing injury, and future economic loss may be awarded based on income from previous short-term employment.
-
Is an employer liable for the criminal act of a third party?
Adlington v Dominos Pizza Enterprises Limited [2016] QDC 84, 15 April 2016. Employers need to assess the possible safety risk from third parties and take appropriate measures to protect their employees.
-
General induction not enough
Brunker v Consolidated Meat Group, 29 August 2010. This case study is about a slicer employed at a Rockhampton meatworks that demonstrates employers must give task specific instructions and directions and must provide more than a 'general induction'.
-
A question of requirement
Drummond v Gunne Constructions [2013] QDC 043, 22/03/2013. While there was no dispute that the injury event occurred, this trial was about whether the employer knew and required the worker to perform this task.
-
Modest damages for minor burn injury
Welsh v Boutique Venues Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 18. The Plaintiff was a 21 year old pastry chef who received minor burns from removing an item from an ellevated oven.
-
Failure to establish negligence
Schonell v Laspina, Trabucco & Co Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 90, 11 April 2013. This case looked at the principle that when considering what reasonable measures employers should adopt to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury, the test should not be considered with the benefit of hindsight, but rather looking forward to identify what response should have been made.
-
Utility worker claimed negligence against her employer for requiring her to perform her normal duties over a period of 6 months
The Plaintiff alleged she suffered bilateral tennis elbow injuries as a result of her work as a kitchen utility worker over a period of time. She did not suffer any “accident” and simply says the forceful and repetitive nature of her duties caused her injury.
-
Contributory negligence by worker and exaggeration lead to reduction in damages
Kennedy v Queensland Alumina [2015] QSC 317, 18 November 2015. The employer was found to be liable for injuries suffered by a worker, but found the worker had contributed to those injuries through his own negligence.