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 49-60 of 132 results with 1 filter

Choose a sort order
  • Employer obliged to conduct inspections to ensure workplace is safe even in the absence of prior incidents

    Covey v State of Queensland [2017] QSC 23, 27 February 2017. The Plaintiff was awarded 1.6m in damages for injuries sustained when she fell at work.

  • Fatigue Management plans a must for shift workers

    Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations and ors [2016] QSC 304, 16 December 2016. In this case, the employer (a labour hire company), the mine owner and the host employer were all found liable for the Plaintiff's injuries, including a brain injury, sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

  • Routine tasks not posing foreseeable risk of injury

    Fatnowna v Acril Quality Testing Services Pty Ltd [unreported] 25 September 2015. In this case the District Court found the employer not to be in breach of its duty to its employees.

  • Routine tasks not posing foreseeable risk of injury

    Rudd v Starbucks Coffee Company (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 232, 22 September 2015. In this case the District Court found the employer not be in breach of its duty to its employees.

  • Decision highlights importance of thoroughly briefing staff

    Digby v The Compass Institute Inc and Anor 30 October 2015 [QSC 308]. This decision highlights the importance of properly briefing staff.

  • Decision explores duty of care and psychiatric injury

    Palmer & Ors v State of Queensland 27 March 2015. This judgement analyses what employee actions can be classified as being within the course of employment and shows that, if an internal investigation process is followed by an employer, there is no special duty of care owed to minimise the risk of psychiatric injury to employees being investigated.

  • Employer not liable for co-worker assault

    Serra v Couran Cove Management P/L, 30 May 2012. This case demonstrates that an employer will not necessarily be liable for a worker’s injuries as a result of a criminal assault by a co-worker.

  • All known injuries need to be the subject of assessment

    Costello v Queensland Rail [2014] QSC 83 16 May 2014 This case provides an analysis of the rights of an individual to damages separate and distinct from their rights under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

  • 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.

  • High duty of care on employers extends to one-off simple tasks

    Witherington v Lev’s Fabrications Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 266 21 November 2014. This case highlights the high duty of care placed on employers to provide workers with a safe place of work, safe systems of work, appropriate training and to assess the risk involved in all aspects of an employee’s work.

  • Psychological injuries in the workplace

    Lusk & Anor v Sapwell, 1 April 2011. Employers only have to address risks in the workplace that are reasonably likely, while a worker must prove that the employer's breach of duty of care caused their injury.