Ambulance Service of NSW v Worley

The Ambulance Service of New South Wales (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment entered in favour of Mr. Worley (the respondent) in a negligence claim. Mr. Worley alleged that he suffered severe shock and injury as a result of the negligent treatment provided by a paramedic employed by the Ambulance Service after he was stung by a bee and developed an allergic reaction. The respondent further contended that the Ambulance Service was vicariously liable for the paramedic's actions and also negligent in its preparation and promulgation of protocols for paramedics.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the paramedic owed a duty of care to Mr. Worley and, if so, whether that duty was breached. This involved determining whether the paramedic acted in accordance with established protocols, whether an alternative method of administering adrenaline was available and appropriate, whether Mr. Worley was "in extremis," and whether the dosage and frequency of adrenaline administration, as well as patient monitoring, were adequate. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the Ambulance Service itself breached its duty of care in developing its protocols, particularly concerning the administration of adrenaline in non-life-threatening situations and whether scientific evidence warranted a change to the protocol. The appeal also concerned the assessment of damages, including whether payments made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) were attributable to the bee sting injury and the appropriateness of an award for past gratuitous services.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in finding the paramedic negligent. The Court reasoned that the paramedic's actions were within the scope of the approved protocol, and there was no evidence to suggest that the paramedic acted unreasonably or outside the bounds of accepted medical practice in the circumstances. The Court held that the protocol did not mandate the intramuscular administration of adrenaline in Mr. Worley's specific situation, and the decision to administer it intravenously was a judgment call made by the paramedic in a situation that, while serious, did not meet the threshold for being "in extremis" as defined by the protocol. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of a breach of duty by the Ambulance Service in the preparation of its protocols, as they were based on prevailing medical knowledge and practice at the time. The Court also addressed the damages, finding that the trial judge's assessment was flawed.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial judge, and entered judgment for the Ambulance Service of New South Wales. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the court below, and was granted a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).