SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Griffiths v State of Queensland [2010] QSC 290
PARTIES:
TRACEY LEANNE GRIFFITHS
(plaintiff)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(defendant)FILE NO/S:
BS 4791 of 2008
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
6 August 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8-9 February 2010
JUDGE:
Daubney J
ORDER:
1. The plaintiff’s claim filed 23 May 2008 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – INDUSTRIAL SAFETY HEALTH AND WELFARE – QUEENSLAND – WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION – LIABILITY – where the plaintiff claims for damages for personal injury incurred during the course of her employment – where the plaintiff was injured when a soda lime canister she lifted from a trolley slipped from her grasp – whether the employer was in breach of its obligation under s 28 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld) to ensure the plaintiff’s workplace health and safety
EMPLOYMENT LAW – LIABILITY AT COMMON LAW FOR INJURY AT WORK – NATURE AND EXTENT OF LIABILITY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims for damages for personal injury incurred during the course of her employment – where the plaintiff was injured when a soda lime canister she lifted from a trolley slipped from her grasp – whether the employer was in breach of its duty of care in failing to provide a safe system of work
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), ss 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 37
Black v Warwick Shire Council [2009] QSC 123; cited
Bourk v Power Serve P/L & Anor [2008] QCA 225; cited
Calvert v Mayne Nickless Ltd (No. 1) [2006] 1 Qd R 106; [2005] QCA 263; cited
Henderson v Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal [2005] QSC 124; cited
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672; applied
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306; cited
Neill v New South Wales Fresh Food and Ice Pty Ltd (1963) 108 CLR 362; cited
O’Brien v TF Woollem & Son Pty Ltd [2002] 1 Qd R 622; cited
Parry v Woolworths Limited [2010] 1 Qd R 1; [2009] QCA 26; cited
Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2001] 1 Qd R 518; [2000] QCA 18; cited
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; cited
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] 223 CLR 422; applied
Wilkinson v BP Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 171; cited
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; appliedCOUNSEL:
B F Charrington and B Wessling-Smith for the plaintiff
G W Diehm SC and R M Treston for the defendantSOLICITORS:
AB Law for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the defendant
This is a claim for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in a workplace incident which occurred during her employment as an Assistant in Nursing at the Nambour General Hospital on 5 October 2004.
The plaintiff was employed in the Central Sterilising…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffiths 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] QSC 290
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the employer had not breached its statutory duty under section 28 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld) as the employer had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the plaintiff’s safety, including providing appropriate training, equipment, and supervision. The court also found that the employer had not breached its common law duty of care in failing to provide a safe system of work, as the employer had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the plaintiff’s safety, including providing appropriate training, equipment, and supervision. The court held that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by her own negligence in failing to properly secure the soda lime canister before lifting it from the trolley.
As a result of the court’s findings, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The court held that the employer was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and that the plaintiff’s claim was therefore without merit. The plaintiff was not awarded any damages and the defendant was not found to be in breach of any duty owed to the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The plaintiff’s claim filed 23 May 2008 is dismissed.
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.