Downes v Affinity Health Pty Ltd

Case [2015] QDC 197


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Downes v Affinity Health Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 197

PARTIES:

DIANE ROSEMARY DOWNES
(plaintiff)

v

AFFINITY HEALTH PTY LTD ABN 53106722347
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Maroochydore D305/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

18 – 22 November 2013

JUDGE:

Long SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the defendant

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURIES – whether the injury to the plaintiff’s back in the course of her employment as a nurse, was a foreseeable risk in her being placed in any avoidable situation where manual handling of a patient became necessary – whether the plaintiff’s injury was caused by any breach of duty on the part of the defendant, by unreasonably failing to take steps to avoid or minimize the risk of injury to the plaintiff, particularly by any failure  to give the plaintiff any appropriate instruction, training or warning in relation to the risk of injury in the performance of her work – damages assessed

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011, 28(1)

Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316

Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438

Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2008] QCA 366

Hopkins v WorkCover [2004] QCA 155

Turner v South Australia (1982) 56 ALJR 839

Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 233 CLR 422

Wilkinson v BP Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 171

Wright v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 86

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

COUNSEL:

L Smith for the plaintiff

R Treston QC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Hawkes Lawyers for the plaintiff

McInnes Wilson for the defendant

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff was born on 29 May 1945 and was aged 62, when the incident which is the subject of these proceedings occurred, in the course of her employment, by the defendant, as a registered nurse at the Selangor Private Hospital in Nambour.  The plaintiff had worked at that hospital since 21 June 1982 and mostly in the surgical ward.  That employment was terminated on 3 November 2008.

  1. By claim filed on 30 October 2009, the plaintiff claims damages for negligence in relation to an incident which occurred in the early hours of 25 July 2007.  It is admitted that the defendant required the plaintiff to perform night shift duties on 24 and 25 July 2007 and that this included the supervision of an elderly patient (named “Beryl”), who had undergone a hip replacement operation on 24 July 2009. 

The Claim

  1. The incident upon which the plaintiff’s claim is based, is pleaded in terms that “at around 2.30 a.m. on 25 July 2007”:

(a)        she “found Beryl attempting to get out of bed”;

(b)        she “stopped Beryl from getting out of bed”;

(c)        she “sought assistance from a co-worker”;

(d)        she and the co-worker (Nurse Newell) “lifted Beryl back into the centre of the bed”; and

(e)        that as a result she “suffered injury to her lumbar spine”.

Continue reading Downes v Affinity Health Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Downes v Affinity Health Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 197
Case
[2015] QDC 197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Downes, a nurse, brought a claim against her employer, Affinity Health, alleging that she had sustained a back injury during the course of her employment. The injury occurred while she was handling a patient, and she sought compensation on the basis that her employer had failed to adequately warn her of the risks associated with such manual handling or to provide appropriate training. The case required the court to determine whether the injury was a foreseeable risk of her employment and whether the employer had breached any duty of care by not taking reasonable steps to mitigate this risk.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the employer had a duty to provide specific training or warnings to the plaintiff regarding the risks of manual handling of patients, and if so, whether a breach of that duty had caused the plaintiff's injury. The court needed to assess whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees in the workplace. It also had to consider whether the injury was a foreseeable risk inherent in the job of a nurse, and if so, whether the employer's failure to provide additional safeguards was a breach of their duty of care.

The court found that the risk of injury during manual handling of patients was an inherent and foreseeable risk of the plaintiff's employment. It held that while the employer had a duty to ensure a safe workplace, it had taken reasonable steps to mitigate this risk, including providing general training and instructions on manual handling. The court determined that there was no evidence to suggest that additional specific warnings or training would have prevented the injury, and thus, the employer had not breached any duty of care. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the 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.