Amer v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd - [2002] QSC 345

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Amer v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 345

PARTIES: GAYNOR ANN AMER
(Plaintiff)
v
CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LTD
(Defendant)

FILE NO: S582 of 2001

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 24 October 2002

DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton

HEARING DATE: 5 and 6 August 2002

JUDGE: Dutney J

ORDERS:Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $87,791.13
CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – where whiteboards fell on plaintiff in 1998 – where plaintiff fell on backside and injured hand when she tried to cushion the fall – where pre-existing degeneration in hand/thumb and lower back – where condition asymptomatic – where condition would have become symptomatic in plaintiff’s mid-late 50’s

PERSONAL INJURIES – LIABILITY – QUANTUM – where plaintiff slipped on a piece of fat or gristle in 1999 – whether system of cleaning adequate – where back injury aggravated and nerve pinched - where further temporary aggravation of injury

Griffin v Coles Myer Ltd [1992] 2 Qd R 478, cited

COUNSEL:Mr R Lynch for the plaintiff
Mr D McMeekin SC for the defendant

SOLICITORS: Sciacca’s Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Swanwick Murray Roche for the Defendant

Gaynor Amer worked in the Lakes Creek meatworks in Rockhampton for most of her adult life. She began in 1967. She has done a variety of jobs from packing to general labouring to quality assurance officer. Ms Amer was working in this latter position when she was injured on 1 June 1998. She was near a trolley of white boards which collapsed. The boards fell against Ms Amer’s leg causing her to fall on her backside. She put out her hand to cushion the fall and also suffered an injury to her left hand and thumb as a result.

Liability for this injury is admitted.

Following the 1998 injury Ms Amer suffered a sore lower back, hand and thumb. Following insignificant incidents of pushing a box and flushing a toilet the hand swelled and she experienced shooting pains her arm. Ms Amer tested negative for carpal tunnel syndrome. The injury affected Ms Amer’s work as a quality assurance officer because the drill used to take core samples from the meat caused pain in the hand and she had trouble lifting boxes of meat. She also had trouble replacing boxes of meat in cryovac bags.

On 9 December 1998 Dr Boland performed an operation on Ms Amer’s left hand. Following the operation Ms Amer was off work on compensation for about 3 months, of which 7 to 8 weeks were spent in plaster. Ms Amer returned to work on “suitable duties” in May 1999 and full duties in August 1999. On her return to normal duties, Ms Amer was given the job of leading hand at the lazy susan. When there was a downturn in the business Ms Amer lost the leading hand position and was required to do normal process work on the lazy susan. Ms Amer says that her back and hand continued…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Amer v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QSC 345
Decision Date: 24 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Amer v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 345 involved Gaynor Ann Amer, the plaintiff, suing Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd, the defendant, over injuries sustained at work. Amer worked for the defendant's meatworks in Rockhampton for many years, and she was injured in two separate incidents. In the first incident, in 1998, Amer was injured when whiteboards fell on her, causing her to fall and injure her hand and back. In the second incident, in 1999, Amer slipped on a piece of fat or gristle while carrying a pile of boxes, which aggravated her back injury and pinched a nerve in her neck. The defendant admitted liability for the first incident but contested liability for the second.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the defendant had breached its duty of care in relation to the second incident, and if so, whether the plaintiff's injuries were exacerbated by this breach. The court also needed to determine the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff's injuries, considering both the 1998 and 1999 incidents. The court had to assess whether the cleaning system in place at the meatworks was adequate to prevent such incidents from occurring, and whether the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative conditions would have eventually led to symptoms regardless of the injuries.

The court found that the cleaning system in place at the meatworks was adequate and that the plaintiff had not established a breach of the required standard by the defendant in relation to the second incident. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the second incident. The court also found that the plaintiff would likely have had to cease work due to the difficulties she was experiencing, even if the first incident had not occurred. The court assessed the damages for the 1998 injury, taking into account pain and suffering, past loss of earnings, future economic loss, lost superannuation, future superannuation, expenses, and future medical expenses. The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $87,791.13 in damages. The court made a judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $87,791.13.

Orders