Print machine operator fails to establish employer liability in hand injury claim
Nemet v Hally Labels Pty Limited [2025] QDC
District Court of Queensland
Judge Dearden DCJ
4 April 2025
Background
The Plaintiff was a print machine operator who sustained a laceration to her left (dominant) hand and thumb as a result of cleaning a doctor blade of a print machine in May 2015. The injury required surgery.
The Plaintiff’s solicitors who acted on her behalf during the early stages of her claim withdrew their representation after commencing litigation. The Plaintiff proceeded to trial self-represented.
Decision
His Honour Jude Dearden DCJ dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, finding that she failed to establish that the Defendant had breached its duty of care. No damages were awarded.
Liability
At the time of her injury, the Plaintiff was not wearing the cut-resistant gloves that were issued by her employer.
The Plaintiff’s pleadings stated: “In a moment of inadvertence, the plaintiff had not fitted gloves”.
The Plaintiff’s own evidence at trial was that she subconsciously chose not to wear the cut-resistant gloves because she was in a hurry.
His Honour accepted the Plaintiff had been provided with the cut-resistant gloves and had received training from the employer to wear the gloves when cleaning the doctor blade. However, his Honour found the Plaintiff’s evidence regarding her induction process and training to be, at times, vague and inconsistent.
His Honour concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant breached its duty of care. He went on to note that if damages were to be awarded, they should be reduced by 50 per cent due to the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
Quantum
His Honour went on to consider the quantum of the claim, notwithstanding the conclusion on liability. He noted the Plaintiff was cleared to return to normal duties by her treating Orthopaedic Surgeon after three months.
The Plaintiff was subsequently terminated by the employer for reasons unrelated to the work injury, which was confirmed in the Plaintiff’s own pleadings which said “The Plaintiff ceased her employment with the employer for reasons unrelated to the injuries”.
The Plaintiff did not call any medical evidence at trial. The Plaintiff contacted her expert’s rooms and was advised the doctor did not give evidence at court unless a person was legally represented. The Plaintiff decided to press ahead with the trial despite this.
The Defendant called Dr Prue FitzPatrick as its medical expert and her evidence was uncontested.
Dr FitzPatrick’s evidence was that there was no reason why the Plaintiff couldn’t continue to work as a print machine operator.