Fox v State of Queensland - [2016] QDC 146

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fox v State of Queensland [2016] QDC 146

PARTIES:

MADELEIN LISELOTT FOX

(Plaintiff)

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D74/14

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30–31 May and 1 June 2016, at Maroochydore

JUDGE:

Bowskill QC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the defendant

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – alleged workplace injury to the plaintiff’s shoulder – liability and quantum in issue – whether the hospital employer breached its duty of care

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss 305B, 305C and 306J

Benic v New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039
Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 38
Brooks v Zammit [2011] QSC 181
Erickson v Bagley [2015] VSCA 220
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Prasad v Ingham’s Enterprises Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 147
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330
State of New South Wales v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419
Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd v Larkin [2013] QCA 281
Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537
Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Miller [2015] NSWCA 320
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316

COUNSEL:

J Sewell for the plaintiff

S Gray for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Schultz Toomey O’Brien for the plaintiff

BT Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

Madelein Fox was working a night shift as an assistant in nursing at the Nambour Hospital (operated by the defendant) on the night of 12 March 2012 when she says she injured her right shoulder as she raised a bed rail on a patient’s bed. She claims damages for the injury, on the basis that it was caused by negligence on the part of the Hospital. Although admitting that, as her employer, it owed Mrs Fox a duty of care, the Hospital denies liability for any injury, on the basis that it did not breach its duty of care. The quantum of the damages claimed by Mrs Fox is also disputed, in particular in relation to economic loss.

Liability

Mrs Fox started working as an assistant in nursing for Queensland Health in about 2010. She obtained her qualification as an assistant in nursing in 2003, and had worked in that capacity at other places prior to working at the Nambour Hospital, including a nursing home at Kirra on the Gold Coast.
From about 2010 she was employed on a casual basis by Queensland Health, and worked at either Caloundra Hospital or Nambour Hospital, depending on work availability.
She described her duties as an assistant in nursing, whether working at Caloundra or Nambour Hospital, as including “watching patients at falls risk”; “making beds, feeding, showers”. Her duties also included assisting other nursing staff with “pressure area care” of patients, which involves turning a patient to check for pressure areas, which may develop when a patient is in bed in one position for a long time.

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 Fox v State of Queensland 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: [2016] QDC 146
Decision Date: 16 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fox v State of Queensland involved a plaintiff who claimed to have suffered personal injuries to his shoulder in a workplace accident. The plaintiff sought to hold the defendant, the State of Queensland, liable for negligence. The dispute was heard in the District Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff argued that the hospital employer had breached its duty of care. The plaintiff's claims included both liability for the injury and the quantum of damages to be awarded.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, to what extent the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his injuries. The court had to examine the evidence provided to determine if the defendant had fulfilled its obligations under the common law principles of negligence. Specifically, the court assessed whether the hospital employer took reasonable steps to ensure the plaintiff's safety and if any failure on its part directly caused the plaintiff's injuries.

In reaching its decision, the court closely examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that the defendant had not breached its duty of care. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim that the hospital employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the injury. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's injuries were not directly caused by any alleged negligence on the part of the defendant. The court was satisfied that the defendant had acted within the scope of its duty and had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent workplace injuries.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and entered judgment in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff's action for negligence was unsuccessful, and the court did not award any damages to the plaintiff. The final orders of the court were that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff's claims were to be dismissed with costs.

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.

CITATION:	Fox v State of Queensland [2016] QDC 146
PARTIES:	MADELEIN LISELOTT FOX (Plaintiff) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D74/14
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	16 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30–31 May and 1 June 2016, at Maroochydore
JUDGE:	Bowskill QC DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the defendant
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – alleged workplace injury to the plaintiff’s shoulder – liability and quantum in issue – whether the hospital employer breached its duty of care Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss 305B, 305C and 306J Benic v New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039 Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 38 Brooks v Zammit [2011] QSC 181 Erickson v Bagley [2015] VSCA 220 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Prasad v Ingham’s Enterprises Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 147 Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330 State of New South Wales v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419 Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd v Larkin [2013] QCA 281 Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537 Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Miller [2015] NSWCA 320 Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316
COUNSEL:	J Sewell for the plaintiff S Gray for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Schultz Toomey O’Brien for the plaintiff BT Lawyers for the defendant