Caird v State of Queensland

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Caird v State of Queensland [2004] QSC 217

PARTIES:

BARRY WILLIAM CAIRD
(plaintiff)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 9623 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

5 May 2004; 6 May 2004; 7 May 2004; 15 June 2004; 16 June 2004

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1.  Judgment in favour of the plaintiff
2.  Damages assessed at $127,900.00
3.  No order as to costs

4.  Leave to appeal on costs granted

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – where plaintiff injured in the course of working as a slaughterman – whether the defendant failed to provide a safe system of work by not ensuring that all slaughtermen employed at the abattoir wore cut-resistant gloves and that all beasts were adequately spaced on the slat conveyor – whether the plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld)

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 312, s 314, s 317

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 36

COUNSEL:

Ms C C Heyworth-Smith for the plaintiff
Mr J S Miles for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiff
Eardley Motteram for the defendant

1. The plaintiff, who was born on 15 February 1963, spent most of his working life in abattoirs where he was employed as a slaughterman or knifeman.  On

   
   

   1 September 2000 he was employed in that capacity by Queensland Abattoir Corporation at Murrarie.  On that date he suffered a severed laceration to his left wrist and hand while working at the abattoir.  He claims damages alleging negligence and breach of contract of employment. The Corporation went into administration and the defendant has succeeded to any liability the Corporation might have to the plaintiff.  I will refer to the Corporation and the defendant indistinguishably as ‘the defendant’.

1. The facts relevant to the claim, and the determination of whether the defendant is liable to pay damages, are small in scope, but before they are analysed it is convenient to describe the part of the abattoir in which the plaintiff was injured and the task he was performing.

1. The plaintiff was working in what was called the kill floor which is where the animals are killed, bled and prepared for skinning and butchering.  Although the abattoir processed a variety of livestock the case concerns cattle.

1. The animals are brought to the commencement of the process in a v-shaped sling which confines and elevates them above the ground.  The sling is in the form of an endless belt which moves the animals from a pen to a point where the ‘knocker’ uses a compressed air gun to fire a stainless steel bolt through the forehead into the brain.  The moving sling then tips the animal onto a table, the surface of which consists of moving slats which take the beast away from the knocking area and past a number of knifemen who perform various procedures on it.…