Corbin v State of Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 79 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Corbin  v State of Queensland [2019] QSC 110

PARTIES:

KERRY CORBIN

(plaintiff)

v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND (QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES)

(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS3127 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 – 20 April 2018 and 26 November 2018

JUDGE:

Ryan J

ORDER:

1.     Judgment for the defendant.

2.     The parties are to be heard on the question of costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – Where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a corrective services officer – where the plaintiff was assaulted by a prisoner – whether the assault to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable – whether the defendant failed to take measures to protect the plaintiff from foreseeable harm – whether the defendant’s breach caused the harm to the plaintiff  

COUNSEL:

J Wiltshire for the plaintiff

B Charrington for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Cooper Grace Ward for the defendant

ISSUES AT TRIAL

THE PLAINTIFF, WOLSTON CORRECTIONAL CENTRE, PRISONER X AND THE ASSAULT

The plaintiff

The plaintiff’s training as a corrective services officer

Wolston Correctional Centre

The plaintiff’s employment at Wolston Correctional Centre and his on-the-job training

The plaintiff’s experience of the prisoners at WolCC

Prisoner X

The assault

Mr Mandic’s evidence about the assault

The plaintiff’s injuries

The plaintiff’s assessment of Prisoner X and his perception of the risk of an assault

PRISONER X’s CRIMINAL AND CUSTODIAL HISTORY

Material about Prisoner X’s behaviour prior to his placement at WolCC in April 2013

WolCC IOMS entries about Prisoner X (from April until October 2013)

Mr Corbin’s IOMS entries about Prisoner X

IOMS entries by other CSOs about Prisoner X

Observation about IOMS entries

LIABILITY

The Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (Qld) 2003

THE DUTY OF CARE AND ITS CONTENT

FORESEEABILITY

Was Prisoner X a “remarkable” prisoner?

Evidence from those who worked with Mr Corbin or knew Prisoner X

Evidence of General Managers of WolCC

The evidence of the experts about Prisoner X

Prisoner X was not a remarkable prisoner

Should Prisoner X have been managed by way of an IMP?

Evidence of those with operational experience in Queensland of IMPs

Evidence of the experts about IMPs

Discussion of evidence about IMPs

BREACH OF DUTY

Would a reasonable employer have managed Prisoner X by way of an IMP?

Were the defendant’s policies inadequate?

Did the defendant breach the duty it owed to the plaintiff?

CAUSATION

The IMP precaution

Defendant’s submissions

Plaintiff’s submissions

Did failing to manage Prisoner X by way of an IMP cause the plaintiff’s injury?

The two-officer precaution

Would the assault not have occurred but for the failure to take two-officer precautions?

QUANTUM

The plaintiff’s health prior to the assault

After the assault

The surveillance footage

Inference to be drawn from the surveillance

General damages

Past economic loss

Past loss of superannuation

Future economic loss

Past special damages (including interest)

Future special…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Corbin v State of Queensland 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
[2019] QSC 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Corbin v State of Queensland, the plaintiff, a corrective services officer, was assaulted by a prisoner while on duty. The plaintiff brought an action for negligence against the defendant, the State of Queensland, asserting that the defendant failed to take reasonable measures to protect him from foreseeable harm. The central issue was whether the assault on the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable and if the defendant breached their duty of care by not taking adequate precautions to prevent it. Additionally, the court had to determine if the defendant's alleged breach caused the harm to the plaintiff.

The court examined whether the assault on the plaintiff was a reasonably foreseeable event. The evidence showed that there were prior interactions between the plaintiff and the prisoner, which were described as needling but not aggressive. While the court acknowledged that the plaintiff was aware of the prisoner's comments, it found that there was no clear indication that the prisoner's conduct would escalate to violence. The court also considered the practices of the defendant in managing prisoner interactions and concluded that the measures taken by the defendant were reasonable under the circumstances. The court determined that the assault was not a foreseeable event, and therefore, the defendant did not breach its duty of care. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for negligence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant, and the parties were to be heard regarding the question of costs. The court found that the defendant had not breached its duty of care to the plaintiff and, as a result, was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff during the assault.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the defendant.

2. The parties are to be heard on the question of costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Mr Corbin said that had he known he was the only prisoner officer in the unit he would not have confronted Prisoner X without backup or “having eyes on me”. He would have called for extra assistance by “calling a code” and having Prisoner X removed from the unit.[5][5] Transcript 1 – 34.Mr Mandic’s evidence about the assault CSO Stanko Mandic explained that he usually worked in S3, but was working in S5 on 10 October 2013. He knew some but not all of the prisoners in S5. He did not know Prisoner X. He had worked with Mr Corbin before. He recalled “banter … remarks and stuff” between Mr Corbin and Prisoner X. He said it was “needling” but not aggressive. It was not friendly, jovial or joking. It was “standoffish” talk from the prisoner including comments about looks and behaviour. He was “not really” concerned about any aspect of Prisoner X’s behaviour, apart from those comments. Before Prisoner X assaulted Mr Corbin, CSO Mandic had just left the officers’ station to go outside to secure the bins by chaining them to a wall.[6] When he came back inside, he noticed that Mr Corbin “wasn’t there” and he saw him wrestling and struggling on the table which was about two metres away. He had been away for “a couple of minutes” he guessed. [6] So that the prisoners could not play with them or throw them around. He instigated a “Code Yellow” on his radio, and went to assist Mr Corbin. He grabbed Prisoner X and struggled with him until he was restrained. Other officers who responded to the Code Yellow took Prisoner X away. He said that, before he went outside, he said to Mr Corbin “just going to lock up the bins mate”. He believed Mr Corbin acknowledged him. Under cross-examination he said that, although he heard the banter between Prisoner X and Mr Corbin, he “didn’t realise that it could have … ever escalated to that sort of thing”. He estimated that he would have been outside for no longer than a minute to a minute and a half.[7] [7] It was suggested to him that he had been gone for one minute and 45 seconds. He said that he did tell Mr Corbin that he was leaving. He said, in effect, that it was his practice to inform whomever he was working with if he was leaving the work area. He denied that he went outside to have a cigarette. He agreed that he would be more cautious about approaching prisoners if he was working alone. He personally would not address a group of prisoners by himself.[8] [8] Transcript 4 – 92, ll 6 – 10. He agreed that Prisoner X was in breach of the rules by smoking inside and his conduct required some action. But if the “situation was reversed” he would have waited for Mr Corbin to return to the unit.The plaintiff’s injuries Mr Corbin was taken to the Ipswich Hospital bleeding profusely from his mouth. His lip had been lacerated and his teeth were damaged and loose. His lip was sutured and he was referred to a dentist. There were no fractures of the facial or teeth bones. An MRI showed no facial abnormality but a maxillofacial surgeon diagnosed an injury to his infraorbital nerve which caused painful sensations. Abnormal movement symptoms and a stutter developed, which have varied over time, but which persist. Their cause is uncertain, but expert opinion is to the effect that they were precipitated by the assault. Also, Mr Corbin developed, and continues to suffer from, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.