Anwar v Mondello Farms Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 73 min read

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Full Court: Civil)

ANWAR v MONDELLO FARMS PTY LTD

[2015] SASCFC 109

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Gray and The Honourable Justice Stanley)

10 August 2015

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGE - CAUSATION

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - WHERE NERVOUS SHOCK OR MENTAL DISORDER

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION - PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITION OF PLAINTIFF

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court. 

The appellant (plaintiff) sued for personal injury suffered in the course of his work as a process line stacker in a potato packing plant operated by the respondent (defendant). The appellant’s work involved removing 20 kilogram bags of washed potatoes from a conveyer belt and placing them manually on a pallet. The appellant’s hand became caught in a gap between the belt and a roller.  It was trapped for a relatively short period of time.  It could only be freed with the use of tools.  The appellant suffered a debridement injury.  The back of his hand was burned, removing the skin.  On 5 May 2005 he underwent plastic surgery where a skin graft was performed. 

The trial judge found this to be a painful but minor injury. He characterised it as non-life-threatening. The judge found that the circumstances by which the injury was caused were relatively benign as industrial accidents go.  The appellant challenges these findings.   The trial judge found that in the five months following the injury the appellant developed symptoms of stress and anxiety.  The appellant suffered a psychotic episode in September 2005.  Subsequently he was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. 

The judge found the respondent liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty for the appellant’s hand injury. There is no challenge on appeal to the judge’s finding on liability. The judge found the existence of a causal relationship between the appellant’s hand injury and the subsequent development of schizophrenia. He found the overwhelming part of the appellant’s disability arose from the fact he suffers from schizophrenia. The judge found that the respondent did not owe the appellant a duty to take care not to cause him mental harm pursuant to s 33 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA). Accordingly the appellant was entitled to damages only in respect of the injury to his right hand. The judge nonetheless proceeded to assess damages if he was wrong in the application of s 33 and the respondent was liable to the appellant for his development of schizophrenia. The judge assessed damages on the basis that there was a high likelihood the appellant would have developed schizophrenia at some point in his life irrespective of the injury to his hand and, accordingly, the damages awarded…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anwar v Mondello Farms 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
[2015] SASCFC 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Anwar v Mondello Farms Pty Ltd*, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an appeal from a judgment of the District Court concerning a workplace injury. The appellant, a 21-year-old Afghani refugee with limited English, sustained a compression injury to his right hand while working as a process line stacker at the respondent's potato packing plant. The injury occurred when his hand became trapped between a conveyor belt and a roller. The trial judge found the respondent liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty for the hand injury, a finding not challenged on appeal. However, the trial judge also found that while the hand injury was painful and required surgery, it was minor and non-life-threatening, and that the circumstances of the accident were relatively benign.

The central legal issues before the Full Court concerned the extent of the respondent's liability for damages flowing from the appellant's subsequent psychological and medical conditions. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent owed a duty of care under section 33 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (SA) in relation to the appellant's psychological injury, and whether the respondent was liable for damages attributable to the appellant's Type II diabetes, which was found to be causally related to the accident. The trial judge had found a causal relationship between the hand injury and the subsequent development of schizophrenia, and that the overwhelming part of the appellant's disability arose from this condition, rendering him unable to work in the future.

The Full Court, comprising Kourakis CJ, Gray and Stanley JJ, allowed the appeal in part. Stanley J, delivering the leading judgment, overturned the trial judge's finding that no duty of care existed under section 33 of the Civil Liability Act. However, the court did not disturb the trial judge's conclusions regarding damages or causation for the hand injury itself. The court's reasoning focused on the foreseeability of psychological harm arising from a traumatic physical injury, particularly in the context of an employee with vulnerabilities such as limited English proficiency. The court affirmed the trial judge's findings on causation for the schizophrenia and diabetes, and the quantum of damages awarded for the hand injury.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, overturning the finding of no duty of care under section 33 of the Civil Liability Act, but otherwise upheld the trial judge's conclusions on damages and causation. The practical effect was that the respondent remained liable for the damages attributable to the appellant's psychological injury and diabetes, as the appeal court did not disturb the findings that these conditions were causally linked to the accident and that the respondent was liable for them.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In my view, the Judge’s conclusions on damages should not be disturbed.Conclusion I would allow the appeal. I would overturn the Judge’s finding that no duty of care existed under section 33 of the Civil Liability Act. I would not disturb the Judge’s conclusions on damages or causation.STANLEY J:Introduction This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court. The appellant (plaintiff) sued for personal injury suffered in the course of his work as a process line stacker in a potato packing plant operated by the respondent (defendant). He was working at the respondent’s plant pursuant to a labour-hire agreement. The appellant’s work involved removing 20 kilogram bags of washed potatoes from a conveyer belt and placing them manually on a pallet. The appellant sustained a compression injury to his right hand on 11 April 2005. He had been working at the plant for just over one week. At the time he was aged 21 years. He is an Afghani refugee who came to Australia with his family from Pakistan in August 2003. He has a poor command of English. In Pakistan he had worked selling carpets. In Australia he worked as a manual labourer in construction before obtaining work at the respondent’s plant. The appellant’s hand became caught in a gap between the belt and a roller ("the accident"). The appellant’s hand was trapped for a relatively short period of time. A co‑worker, Mr Haliday, gave evidence that he thought it took up to 10 minutes to free the appellant’s hand. He described the appellant screaming in pain during this time saying “get me out, get me out”. The appellant’s hand could only be freed with the use of tools. The appellant suffered a debridement injury. The back of his hand was burned, removing the skin. On 5 May 2005 he underwent plastic surgery where a skin graft was performed. The trial judge found this to be a painful but minor injury. He characterised it as non-life-threatening. The judge found that the circumstances by which the injury was caused were relatively benign as industrial accidents go. The appellant challenges these findings. The appellant has not worked since the accident. The trial judge found that in the five months following the injury the appellant developed symptoms of stress and anxiety. The appellant suffered a psychotic episode in September 2005. Subsequently he was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. The judge found the respondent liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty for the appellant’s hand injury. There is no challenge on appeal to the judge’s finding on liability. The judge found the existence of a causal relationship between the appellant’s hand injury and the subsequent development of schizophrenia. He found the overwhelming part of the appellant’s disability arose from the fact he suffers from schizophrenia.[8] The judge found that by reason of his schizophrenia the appellant has been unable to work and will not work again in the future. [8] The judge also found the appellant suffers from Type II diabetes which was caused by the accident. That the diabetes is causally related to the schizophrenia is not in dispute on the appeal. Whether the respondent is liable for the damages attributable to the appellant's diabetes is contingent on the judge's finding that the appellant's schizophrenia is causally related to the accident. The appellant’s diabetes only sounds in damages if the appeal succeeds. Even then, the award forms only a small component of the overall assessment. It forms some unidentifiable part of the sum awarded for non-economic loss and $11,032 for future treatment.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.