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
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
COUNSEL:
L Smith for the plaintiff
R Treston QC for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
Hawkes Lawyers for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the defendant
Introduction
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.
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
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
- AGLC
- Downes v Affinity Health Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 197
- Case
- [2015] QDC 197
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.