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 73-84 of 130 results with 1 filter

Choose a sort order
  • Credibility of the worker was important in determining the extent of the injury

    Richard Craig Adam v Skilled Group Limited and Anor [2013] QSC 7, 8 February 2013. While credibility issues on their own are not always compelling, the combination of them can cause considerable concern.

  • Industry standard equipment not enough to satisfy duty of care

    Thompson v Cranetrans Pty Ltd [2013] 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.

  • A question of credibility

    Hannah v Barellan Bobcat Hire Pty Ltd, 24 August 2011. Liability will be determined on the facts that are accepted by the Court, and the credibility of the parties is critical in making this determination.

  • Previous employment influence

    Husband v Hikari Pty Ltd, 22 October 2010. This case study shows that a Judge may award damages despite having a pre-existing injury, and future economic loss may be awarded based on income from previous short-term employment.

  • Judge to decide what is matter of fact

    Timothy James Klein v SBD Services Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 134, 30 May 2013. This case demonstrates the importance of record keeping and accurate reporting of injuries. If documentation is lacking, it will ultimately fall to the Judge to decide on a matter of fact.

  • No proper system of inspection

    Gilmour v State of Queensland [2013] QDC 199 6 September 2013. If a proper inspection had occured it would have identified the risk in time for it to be repaired.

  • Damages for care and assistance

    Koven v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd, 25 March 2011. Full damages for care and assistance can be awarded where paid care and assistance was provided even just once between the date of injury and trial, despite being provided gratuitously/for free on all other occasions.

  • Employer's duty of care is not absolute

    Baker v Prescare (Corinda) [2014] QDC 159 31 July 2014. This case highlights that while an employer's duty of care is onerous, it is not absolute.

  • Basic task results in negligence

    Taylor v Invitro Technologies Pty Ltd, 15 March 2011. This case study talks about how an employer needs to carefully consider complaints made by employees and respond to them in an appropriate way.

  • Plaintiff acted contrary to training

    Evans v State of Queensland [2013] QDC 277. A police officer suffered a nose, wrist and psychiatric injury when she was struck by an offender while attempting to extract his car keys from a car.

  • Relationship between two separate injuries

    Hartin v Rigel Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 320 21 November 2013. The case turned upon the extent to which the first incident caused the derangement of the vertebral disc, and the relationship between the injury sustained in the first and second incident, and the loss and damage caused by the first incident.

  • Employer not negligent in worker injury

    Campbell v Galaxy Plumbing [2013] QSC 315 18 November 2013. There was no evidence that the task was so physically demanding that it could not be performed by one man who was also carrying out a variety of other jobs. The employer’s failure to provide more labourers was not negligent.