Case studies
Selected filters
Showing 49-60 of 130 results with 1 filter
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
Employer not negligent for trivial accident
Chapman ATS University of Southern Queensland Student Guild, 12 August 2010. Manual handling case study where a cleaner was injured performing additional duties. This case study demonstrates an employer will not necessarily be found negligent for a trivial workplace incident.
-
Injury of an Employee due to an unsafe system of work
Russell v Hancock Farm Company Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 129, 14 June 2013. The system of work used was unsafe and a breach of the employer’s duty of care. Even though other employees used the system without incident, it does not mean that an employer does not need to take precautions when an injury is foreseeable.