Digby v The Compass Institute Inc - [2015] QSC 308

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Digby v The Compass Institute Inc and Anor [2015] QSC 308

PARTIES:

MELANIE DIGBY

(plaintiff)

v
THE COMPASS INSTITUTE INC (ABN 74 168 383 378)

(first defendant)

AND

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(second defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 3490 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 26 March; 16, 17, 23, 24 April 2015

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $158,045.

2. Case dismissed against the second defendant.

CATCHWORDS:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 5(1), r 375(1)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Australian Capital Territory v Crowley (2012) 273 FLR 370, cited
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14, (2005) 79 ALJR 839, applied
Leotta v Public Transport Commission of New South Wales (1976) 50 ALJR 666, applied

Petchell v Du Pradal; Pia Du Pradal Pty Ltd v Petchell [2015] QCA 132, referred to

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – PARTICULAR PERSONS AND SITUATIONS – OTHER CASES – where the first defendant was an incorporated business providing disability services to young people – where the plaintiff was an employee of the first defendant – where the second defendant was the employer of a police officer, who attended at the first defendant’s premises to give a presentation to its clients – where, during the course of that presentation, the police officer turned on the siren of a police vehicle, which caused a client with physical and intellectual disabilities to startle and fall – where the plaintiff attempted to arrest his fall and, in doing so, suffered an injury to her right shoulder – where the plaintiff subsequently appeared to develop a constant tremor in her right hand and arm, along with severe pain throughout her right upper body – whether the first defendant had breached the duty of care owed as an employer by failing to provide a safe system of work – whether the second defendant owed a duty of care – whether the second defendant had breached any duty of care owed by failing to give a warning before turning on the siren

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – OTHER CASES – where the first defendant was an incorporated business providing disability services to young people – where the plaintiff was an employee of the first defendant – where the second defendant was the employer of a police officer, who attended at the first defendant’s premises to give a presentation to its clients – where, during the course of that presentation, the police officer turned on the siren of a police vehicle, which caused a client with physical and intellectual disabilities to startle and fall – where the plaintiff attempted to arrest his fall and,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Digby v The Compass Institute Inc 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: [2015] QSC 308
Decision Date: 30 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Digby v The Compass Institute Inc involves a dispute between the plaintiff, an employee of the first defendant, a disability services provider, and the first and second defendants. The plaintiff suffered an injury to her right shoulder while attempting to prevent a client with disabilities from falling after being startled by the siren of a police vehicle during a presentation at the first defendant’s premises. The second defendant was the employer of the police officer who turned on the siren. The plaintiff sought damages for her injury, including the costs of her medical treatment, rehabilitation and medication.

The legal issues before the court were whether the first defendant breached the duty of care owed as an employer by failing to provide a safe system of work, whether the second defendant owed a duty of care, whether the second defendant breached any duty of care owed by failing to give a warning before turning on the siren, and to what extent the plaintiff had suffered injury. The court had to determine the extent of the first defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment, rehabilitation and medication.

The court found that the first defendant had breached the duty of care owed as an employer by failing to provide a safe system of work. The court held that the first defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of the police officer who turned on the siren. The court found that the second defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and did not breach any duty of care owed by failing to give a warning before turning on the siren. The court found that the plaintiff had suffered an injury to her right shoulder and had developed a constant tremor in her right hand and arm, along with severe pain throughout her right upper body. The court found that the first defendant was liable for the costs of the plaintiff’s medical treatment, rehabilitation and medication.

The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $158,045, and dismissed the case against the second defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $158,045.

2. Case dismissed against the second defendant.

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.

CITATION:	Digby v The Compass Institute Inc and Anor [2015] QSC 308
PARTIES:	MELANIE DIGBY (plaintiff) v THE COMPASS INSTITUTE INC (ABN 74 168 383 378) (first defendant) AND STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second defendant)
FILE NO:	SC No 3490 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 October 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 26 March; 16, 17, 23, 24 April 2015
JUDGE:	Atkinson J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $158,045. 2. Case dismissed against the second defendant.
CATCHWORDS:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 5(1), r 375(1) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Australian Capital Territory v Crowley (2012) 273 FLR 370, cited Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14, (2005) 79 ALJR 839, applied Leotta v Public Transport Commission of New South Wales (1976) 50 ALJR 666, applied Petchell v Du Pradal; Pia Du Pradal Pty Ltd v Petchell [2015] QCA 132, referred to TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – PARTICULAR PERSONS AND SITUATIONS – OTHER CASES – where the first defendant was an incorporated business providing disability services to young people – where the plaintiff was an employee of the first defendant – where the second defendant was the employer of a police officer, who attended at the first defendant’s premises to give a presentation to its clients – where, during the course of that presentation, the police officer turned on the siren of a police vehicle, which caused a client with physical and intellectual disabilities to startle and fall – where the plaintiff attempted to arrest his fall and, in doing so, suffered an injury to her right shoulder – where the plaintiff subsequently appeared to develop a constant tremor in her right hand and arm, along with severe pain throughout her right upper body – whether the first defendant had breached the duty of care owed as an employer by failing to provide a safe system of work – whether the second defendant owed a duty of care – whether the second defendant had breached any duty of care owed by failing to give a warning before turning on the siren TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – OTHER CASES – where the first defendant was an incorporated business providing disability services to young people – where the plaintiff was an employee of the first defendant – where the second defendant was the employer of a police officer, who attended at the first defendant’s premises to give a presentation to its clients – where, during the course of that presentation, the police officer turned on the siren of a police vehicle, which caused a client with physical and intellectual disabilities to startle and fall – where the plaintiff attempted to arrest his fall and,…