Skip to content
Menu

Case studies

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

Showing 13-24 of 37 results with 1 filter

Choose a sort order
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Employer found not negligent in security

    Karanfilov v MSS Security & Ors [2013] QSC 304. Injured worker suffered post-traumatic stress disorder when he was working as a security guard.

  • No alternative system established

    Williams v Riviera Marine [2013] QDC 306. The worker suffered a shoulder injury while working on wiring in a small locker onboard a boat.

  • Worker's fall did not cause consequential symptoms

    Beardmore v Crown Equipment Pty Ltd [2012] QDC, 3 October 2012. This is a case where the court found there was a fall at work, there was negligence but the fall did not cause consequential symptoms.

  • No reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous

    Pols v AME Products [2013] QDC 190 19 August 2013. There was no reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous to other employees.There was no reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous to other employees.

  • Not foreseeable for racial joking to cause psychiatric condition

    Guorgi v Pipemakers Australia [2013] QSC 198 9 August 2013. It wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that the worker would suffer a psychiatric condition as a result of racial jokes.