Cowen v Bunnings Group Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cowen v Bunnings Group Limited [2014] QSC 301

PARTIES:

JANELLE ELIZABETH COWEN
(plaintiff)
v
BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED (ACN 26 008 672 179)
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS634/13

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18, 19, 20 and 22 August 2014

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $700,000.00;

2.   The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the indemnity basis on the District Court scale.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant – where the plaintiff alleges that she swept up spilt fertiliser for over two hours and inhaled significant amounts of the fertiliser dust – where the plaintiff alleges that her inhalation of that dust was the causative factor for her development of pneumococcal meningitis, encephalitis and septicaemia – where the plaintiff sues the defendant in negligence for damages associated with her illness – where the plaintiff and defendant have agreed on all aspects of the negligence claim except causation – where the respondent alleges that a potential pre-existing respiratory illness, the plaintiff’s smoking habit and/or the presence of atmospheric sulphur dioxide mean that the plaintiff cannot prove that it is more probable than not that her inhalation of the fertilisation dust was the causative factor of her primary illness, the meningitis – whether it is more probable than not that the plaintiff’s exposure to the fertiliser dust caused her illness, and that the defendant was thereby negligent

Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538, cited
Chappel v Hart
(1998) 195 CLR 232, cited
EMI (Australia) Ltd v Bes [1970] 2 NSWLR 238, cited
Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd (1975) 2 NSWLR 190, cited
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd
(1991) 171 CLR 506, cited
National Insurance Co of New Zealand v Espagne
(1961) 105 CLR 569, cited
Nicolia v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1970) 45 ALJR 465, cited
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642, cited
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness & Anor
(2000) 49 NSWLR 263, cited
Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537, cited

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor QC for the plaintiff
G W Diehm QC and A Luchich for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiff
BT Lawyers for the defendant

  1. Alan Wilson J:  Ms Cowen, 50, worked for Bunnings in Mt Isa in March 2008.  Her work was primarily in an area called the ‘Trade Shed’ but her duties included keeping the area in which she worked and its surrounds, both inside and outside, clean and tidy. 

  1. She alleged that plastic bags containing a fertiliser based on chicken manure, called ‘Rooster Booster’, had been stored outside uncovered, and exposed to the weather.  Over time, she said, the bags began to deteriorate, bursting and splitting and spilling their contents.  The fertiliser ‘really…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cowen v Bunnings Group Limited 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
[2014] QSC 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cowen v Bunnings Group Limited, the plaintiff, Cowen, was employed by Bunnings Group Limited. She alleged that she had inhaled significant amounts of fertiliser dust while sweeping up spilt fertiliser for over two hours, and that this inhalation was the causative factor for her development of pneumococcal meningitis, encephalitis, and septicaemia. Cowen sued Bunnings in negligence for damages associated with her illness. Both parties agreed on all aspects of the negligence claim except causation. Bunnings argued that Cowen could not prove that it was more probable than not that her inhalation of the fertiliser dust caused her illness, and that Bunnings was thereby negligent. The issue for the court was to determine whether it was more probable than not that Cowen’s exposure to the fertiliser dust caused her illness, and that Bunnings was thereby negligent.

The court examined the medical evidence presented by both parties. It found that the evidence showed that Cowen’s exposure to the fertiliser dust was the most likely cause of her illness. The court also noted that there was no evidence of any pre-existing respiratory illness in Cowen, and that her smoking habit and the presence of atmospheric sulphur dioxide were not sufficient to rebut the evidence linking her illness to the fertiliser dust. The court concluded that it was more probable than not that Cowen’s inhalation of the fertiliser dust caused her illness, and that Bunnings was thereby negligent. The court awarded Cowen damages in the sum of $700,000.00, and ordered Bunnings to pay Cowen’s costs on the indemnity basis on the District Court scale.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $700,000.00;

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the indemnity basis on the District Court scale.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.