Endeavour Foundation v Weaver

Case [2013] QCA 371

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Endeavour Foundation v Weaver [2013] QCA 371

PARTIES:

ENDEAVOUR FOUNDATION
ACN 009 670 704
(appellant)
v
CHRISTINE ANNE WEAVER
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4239 of 2013
SC No 552 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 September 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and Margaret Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The judgment at first instance is set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.

3.   The parties have leave to make submissions on costs within 14 days of the delivery of this judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERAL MATTERS – where the respondent in the course of her employment with the appellant trained other employees in techniques for avoiding client assault – where the respondent while demonstrating a “back steps” manoeuvre fell and suffered personal injury – where the trial judge found that the appellant had unnecessarily exposed the respondent to a risk of injury by instructing her in her initial training to perform the “back steps” manoeuvre quickly – where the respondent’s evidence was that she was told to move more quickly as she became more practised, and to move “as quickly as possible” – where the training and training manual given to the respondent emphasised practice as a means of becoming accustomed to the movements, in preparation for a real-life attack – whether the trial judge mistook the content of the instruction given to the respondent – whether the evidence showed that a video demonstration would have provided adequate training – whether the instruction given to the respondent, to demonstrate the manoeuvre as quickly as she was capable of doing, was reasonable

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES – where the trial judge, applying s 308E of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, awarded $30,000 for a wide range of future services – where the respondent had previously carried out the tasks for which she had claimed future assistance – whether s 308C or s 308E of the Act was applicable – where house cleaning services were the only paid services the respondent had received since her injury – where many of the services for which future assistance was claimed were not “services of substantially the same type” – whether the trial judge erred in making an award for all the services claimed – whether the resulting difference in the award would justify interference with the judgment

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 308A, s 308C, s 308E

Anderson v Mt Isa Basketball Association Incorporated[1997] QCA 340, distinguished
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317; [2003] HCA 51, applied
Elford v FAI General…

Continue reading Endeavour Foundation v Weaver

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Endeavour Foundation v Weaver [2013] QCA 371
Case
[2013] QCA 371
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved a dispute between the Endeavour Foundation and Weaver, the Foundation's former employee. Weaver claimed damages for injuries she sustained while demonstrating a "back steps" manoeuvre during a training session for other employees. The trial judge found the Foundation negligent for instructing Weaver to perform the manoeuvre quickly, leading to her fall and injury. Weaver argued that the Foundation's training was inadequate and that a video demonstration would have been sufficient.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge correctly interpreted the instructions given to Weaver and whether the Foundation's instruction for Weaver to demonstrate the manoeuvre quickly was reasonable. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge correctly applied the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act in awarding damages for future services. Weaver claimed she needed assistance with various tasks, but the trial judge awarded damages under section 308E of the Act. The Foundation argued that section 308C, which deals with previous employment, was more appropriate.

The court found that the trial judge misinterpreted the instruction given to Weaver. The instruction was reasonable as it aimed to prepare Weaver for a real-life attack by emphasizing practice. The court also found that the evidence suggested a video demonstration would have been an adequate alternative to live demonstration. Regarding the damages, the court held that the trial judge erred in applying section 308E of the Act. Instead, section 308C was more applicable, given Weaver's previous employment history. The award for future services was excessive, and the court set aside the original judgment and entered judgment in favour of the Foundation.

The orders of the court were to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment at first instance, and enter judgment for the Foundation. The parties were given leave to make submissions on costs within 14 days of the delivery of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The judgment at first instance is set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.

3. The parties have leave to make submissions on costs within 14 days of the delivery of this judgment.

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.