Employer not liable for shoulder injury after opening door

Filippe v CCIG Investments Pty Ltd (2026)

Judgement delivered at Townsville Magistrates Court on 20 April 2026.

The facts

The Plaintiff was employed as an Executive Housekeeper at Daydream Island Resort. She was 43 years old at the time of judgment.

She sustained a right shoulder injury on 7 January 2020 as a result of opening a fire rated door while exiting one of the guest rooms in the Resort.

Decision

Magistrate Warrington dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, finding that the Defendant had not breached its duty of care.

Liability

The Plaintiff’s evidence was that there was wind in the guest room due to the balcony door being open. Further, that this made opening the door ‘really hard’ and ‘like it was impossible to open’.

However, none of the lay witnesses called by the Plaintiff spoke of ever experiencing difficulties opening doors due to the presence of wind. The Plaintiff’s evidence of experiencing difficulty opening the fire door was limited to the one occasion on 7 January 2020. Magistrate Warrington concluded that the Plaintiff had exaggerated the level of resistance the wind applied to the fire door and found that any resistance was likely to have been relatively minor.

In this context and in the absence of prior notification to the Defendant of a risk associated with opening a fire door due to different wind speeds or prior injuries from opening doors to guest rooms (despite these doors being opened regularly), Magistrate Warrington concluded that the risk of injury was not foreseeable and was insignificant.

Even if Magistrate Warrington had reached a different view on the foreseeability issue, she was not persuaded that a reasonable person in the position of the Defendant would have taken any particular precautions in relation to the risk of harm. The Plaintiff’s case was that the housekeepers ought to have been allowed to use chocks to hold the doors open.

The finding that the wind created relatively minor resistance was relevant to why the Defendant was not required to take this step. Also, the Defendant’s policy was that the doors would remain closed when the rooms were being serviced, for security reasons and to ensure the fire doors complied with fire codes, which Magistrate Warrington accepted were ‘sound reasons’.

Quantum

Following the injury the Plaintiff returned to work for the Defendant performing light duties.

She resigned from that employment in July 2020 due to alleged bullying before taking up a position as Housekeeping Manager at another resort at the end of August 2020. The Plaintiff had surgery on her right shoulder in November 2020. She returned to work performing suitable duties but that employment was terminated in June 2021. In July 2022, the Plaintiff commenced working as a disability employment consultant and continued in that employment until October 2025 when her position was made redundant.

Magistrate Warrington made no allowance for past economic loss beyond the statutory benefits paid by WorkCover Queensland (which totalled $76,990.30).

Magistrate Warrington concluded that the Plaintiff was unlikely to suffer any future financial loss and made no award for future economic loss. She had regard to the post-injury income, the medical evidence that indicated the Plaintiff had a good prognosis with minor discomfort, a pre-existing injury to the right shoulder (sustained in August 2019) and other medical conditions.

If the Plaintiff had been successful, Magistrate Warrington would have assessed damages in the sum of $33,734.45 clear of theWorkCover refund.