Beaven v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Beaven v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 299

PARTIES:

DAVID ALLEN BEAVEN
(Plaintiff)

v

WAGNER INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
(ACN 105 730 489)
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D42/2014

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

24 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 November 2015

JUDGE:

Richards DCJ

ORDER:

Claim dismissed.

Judgement for the defendant.

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURY - TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF CONTRACT - EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – LIABILITY - where the plaintiff was injured at work when he tried to unlock a truck door by pulling on the unlocking pin with vice grips– whether the defendant breached its duty of care as an employer - whether the defendant was liable for the damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

Worker’s Compensation Rehabilitation Regulation 2014

Amaca Pty Ltd v Booth (2011) 246 CLR 36

Czatyko v Edith Cowley Investing (2005) 214 ALR 349

Prasad v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 147

Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australasia) Ltd v Stapleton [1996] QCA 185

Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2003) CLR 422

Woolworths Ltd v Perrins [2015] QCA 207

COUNSEL:

Anderson S D for the plaintiff
Farrell S T for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
BT Lawyers for the defendant

1. The plaintiff has claimed damages for negligence and/or breach of contract on the basis of:

·     a failure to provide a safe system of work;

·     failure to take all reasonable steps to implement, monitor and enforce the system of work in effect;

·     failure to not require or permit the plaintiff to work in a manner that would or was likely to cause injury to the plaintiff;

·     failure to provide adequate assistance and supervision to ensure the plaintiff would not or was not likely to injury himself in the course of his employment;

·     failure to provide adequate plant and equipment to ensure the plaintiff could undertake his employment in a manner that was not likely to cause injury;

·     failure to not expose the plaintiff to a risk of injury where a reasonably prudent employer in the position of the first defendant would not have done so.

1. The relevant agreed facts are that:

·the plaintiff was employed by the defendant

·the defendant was engaged in the business of selling and supplying concrete and had premises at 20 Airy Street, Wacol where the plaintiff was employed as a concrete agitator/truck driver and the defendant was an employer as that term is defined by s 30 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

·the plaintiff was a worker as that term is defined by s 11 of the Act

·the plaintiff’s duties required him to drive concrete trucks to various locations and to operate the truck so that the concrete could be emptied as required 

·on 10 January 2011 the plaintiff returned to work after a period of two weeks’ holiday and was assigned a concrete truck…