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 61-72 of 130 results with 1 filter

Choose a sort order
  • No obligation to warn of obvious risk

    Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] 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.

  • Mandatory participation results in damages paid

    Bagiante v Bunnings Group Limited. [2012] QSC, 31 May 2012. Employers should take care when arranging team events and participation in these activities should be on a voluntary basis.

  • Damages awarded to former mining employee

    Martin v Golding Contractors Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 053 27 March 2014. In this case, while liability was admitted, the amount of damages was in dispute.

  • Patient care plan not clearly communicated

    Anderson v Lutheran Church of Australia [2013]. Worker was injured when she was helping a patient use the toilet at a nursing home.

  • Employer not negligent in crane road accident

    Millard v RI-CO (2004) Pty Limited (In liquidation) [2014] 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 [2012] 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.

  • Accident not caused by failures

    Wolters v The University of the Sunshine Coast [2012] QSC 298, 5 October 2012. This is another case where the legal term of causation has been examined. The court found the employer breached its duty at common law and in contract by failing to adequately manage the behaviour of the supervisor following the event with the previous worker. However, the court held that the breach did not cause the claimant's loss, as it could not find that any action by the employer would have prevented the supervisor's actions on the day.

  • Warning could have prevented injury

    Fetu v Northern Iron and Brass Foundry [2013] 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.

  • The onerous obligation on an employer to instruct and warn

    Weaver v Endeavour Foundation [2013] QSC 93, 12 April 2013. This judgment effectively imposes a standard akin to perfection on an employer and goes to the scope of an employer’s duty of care generally. The employer was found liable for doing its very best to train staff to minimise foreseeable risks of injury in the workplace.