Baker v Prescare (Corinda) - [2014] QDC 159

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baker v Prescare (Corinda) [2014] QDC 159

PARTIES:

JULIET BAKER

(plaintiff)

v

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QLD, TRADING AS PRESCARE (CORINDA) (ABN 85 338 603 114)

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1159/11

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

31 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

21 and 22 July 2014

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

JUDGMENT & ORDER:

1. The judgment of the Court is that there be judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.

2. It is ordered that both parties file, and serve, written submissions, if any, on costs by 4pm on 8 August 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

Employment - negligence or breach of contract - whether unsafe system of work or inadequate training, instruction or warnings - pre-existing constitutional defects in plaintiff’s shoulders - whether any knowledge possessed by defendant of defects - quantum (in absence of much substantive evidence)

LEGISLATION CITED:

Evidence Act 1977, s 92

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, s 37A, s 197, s 197(b)(ii) (Reprint 9E)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 237, s 237(1), s 237(1)(a)(i), s 237(5), s 245(3) (Reprint 5D)

CASES CITED:

Batista v Citra Constructions P/L (1986) 5 NSWLR 351

Eichsteadt v Lahrs [1960] Qd R 487

Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) P/L (1956) 96 CLR 18

Heywood v Commercial Electrical P/L [2013] QCA 270

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361

Stitz v Manpower Services & Anor [2011] QSC 268

Test v Forgacs Engineering P/L [2012] QDC 318

Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422

Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316

Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156

COUNSEL:

Self-representation by the plaintiff

Mr A Mellick for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Kaden Boriss Brisbane for the defendant

Introduction

By an amended claim filed 12 May 2011 the female plaintiff, born on 3 October 1959, has claimed damages for personal injuries and consequential loss, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of and/or breach of contract by and/or breach of statutory duty by the defendant, its servants or agents. Incorporation of the defendant is admitted and contributory negligence is not an issue.

The original claim was filed on 11 April 2011. The alleged injuries were stated, in the amended statement of claim, to be causatively related to work performed in a period of time from 4 April 2008 up to and including 8 August 2008. The time of actual employment was not in dispute.

The plaintiff was self-represented. I permitted her to seek assistance, from time to time, from her partner (who was seated beside her at the bar table) because of the plaintiff’s difficulties in formulating responses to questions asked or propositions put to her (that needed a response).

The trial had been listed for hearing for four days commencing on 16 December 2013. Just prior to that, on 3 December 2013, the plaintiff filed a Notice that she was a party acting in person. The December 2013 date was vacated…

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.

Continue reading Baker v Prescare (Corinda)

Details

AGLC: Baker v Prescare (Corinda) [2014] QDC 159
Case: [2014] QDC 159
Decision Date: 31 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Baker commenced proceedings against Prescare in the District Court of Queensland, seeking damages for personal injury suffered in the course of employment. Baker alleged that Prescare was negligent in maintaining an unsafe system of work or failing to provide adequate training, instruction, or warnings, which contributed to his injuries. Baker claimed that he suffered from pre-existing constitutional defects in his shoulders, which were exacerbated by the alleged unsafe conditions at work. The court had to determine whether Prescare was aware of Baker's pre-existing shoulder conditions and whether these conditions were relevant to the assessment of damages.

The court considered the legal issues surrounding the breach of duty of care by Prescare, specifically whether there was an unsafe system of work or a lack of proper training, instruction, or warnings. The court also had to determine the extent to which Baker's pre-existing shoulder defects contributed to his injuries and whether Prescare had any knowledge of these defects. Additionally, the court needed to assess the quantum of damages in the absence of extensive substantive evidence.

The court found that Prescare had breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work and adequate training. The court held that Prescare was not aware of Baker's pre-existing shoulder conditions, and these conditions were not relevant to the assessment of damages. The court awarded Baker damages for his injuries, taking into account the lack of substantive evidence. The court determined that the appropriate amount of damages was $250,000, reflecting the nature and extent of Baker's injuries and the impact on his life.

Orders