Showing 61-72 of 130 results with 1 filter
No obligation to warn of obvious risk
Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd  QSC 52, 11 March 2013. The duty imposed on employers is to take reasonable care to avoid injury to workers. An employer does not have an obligation to avoid all risks by all reasonably affordable means. The obviousness of the risk and a reasonable expectation that workers will take care of their own safety must be taken into account.
Damages awarded to former mining employee
Martin v Golding Contractors Pty Ltd  QSC 053 27 March 2014. In this case, while liability was admitted, the amount of damages was in dispute.
Employer not negligent in crane road accident
Millard v RI-CO (2004) Pty Limited (In liquidation)  QSC 15 April 2014. An employer was found not to be negligent in its duty of care after a worker was injured driving a crane on a public road without permission.
Credibility of witness statements
Tep v ATS Australasian Technical Services Pty Ltd  QSC, 7 September 2012. This case was decided on credibility where his honour preferred the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses to that of the workers as to how the event occurred.
Warning could have prevented injury
Fetu v Northern Iron and Brass Foundry  QDC 330. Worker suffered a shoulder injury when he was working in a primer booth as a spray painter.
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
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.
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.
Industry standard equipment not enough to satisfy duty of care
Thompson v Cranetrans Pty Ltd  QSC 250 23 September 2013. Where equipment is provided which accords with industry standard, that does not necessarily mean that the employer’s conduct has met a standard of reasonable care.