Skip to content

Case studies

Filter by Industry
Filter by Audience
Filter by Author
Filter by Hazard type
Hazard type
Filter by Topic
Selected filters

Showing 37-48 of 132 results with 1 filter

Choose a sort order
  • Plaintiff unsuccessful in proving liability in prison assault

    Eastment v State of Queensland [2018] QCA 253 – Court of Appeal Brisbane The plaintiff, a former correctional officer, was assaulted by a prisoner on 8 March 2009. The plaintiff developed a significant psychiatric injury as a result of the event. Quantum was agreed and the matter proceeded as a liability only trial.

  • 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.

  • Workplace assault involving issues of foreseeability and causation and the employer's knowledge

    Colwell v Top Cut Foods Pty Ltd ACN 010 650 281 [2018] QDC, 27 June 2018. The Plaintiff alleged that preceding events put the employer on notice of a possible assault which then imposed a duty of care on the employer to implement preventative measures to prevent the foreseeable risk.

  • Court imposes very high duty on Employers

    Beven v Brisbane Youth Service Inc [2017] QCA 211 22 September 2017. There is a very strict duty on employers who provide services to high risk clients, to take reasonable precautions, including the decline of services, in order to protect their staff.

  • Horseplay not to be tolerated in the workplace

    Goran Cincovic v Blenners Transport Pty Ltd, Supreme Court of Queensland [2017] QSC 320, 20 December 2017. Employers need to ensure there are clear directions in the workplace, not to engage in activities which pose a foreseeable risk of injury.

  • 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.

  • Assaults by third parties

    The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] QCA 103, 26 May 2017. Employer is found to breach its duty in failing to train staff and establish guidelines for properly responding to unsafe events.

  • How far are courts prepared to go with social media and bullying

    Robinson v Lorna Jane Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 266, 3 November 2017. In this case, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to disclose facebook material, which completely destroyed the Plaintiff's credibility.

  • Plaintiff is unsuccessful in proving management action was inappropriate

    Pere v Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service [2017] QDC 002, 27 January 2017. In this case, the Plaintiff was unable to prove there was an assault or that there was any breach of duty by the employer causing compensable loss.

  • Employer found to be directly and vicariously liable for District Chief Executive's bullying

    Robinson v Cape York Hospital and Health Service [2017] QSC 165, 8 August 2017. The employer was both directly and also vicariously liable for their staff's behaviour which included managerial mistreatment, humiliation, undermining and isolation.

  • Assessment of risk and training required for manual handling

    D’Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] QSC 103, 31 May 2017. In this case the employer was found to be liable for a back injury sustained by the Plaintiff during the course of her employment.

  • 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.