Hallmark-Mitex Pty Ltd v Rybarczyk - [1998] QCA 254

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 254
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Appeal No. 11009 of 1997
Brisbane
[Hallmark-Mitex P/L v. Rybarczyk]
BETWEEN:

HALLMARK-MITEX PTY LTD
A.C.N. 010 920 091

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

MARIA RYBARCZYK

(Plaintiff) Respondent
Pincus JA Demack J

Chesterman J

Judgment delivered 4 September 1998

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL ALLOWED. JUDGMENT BELOW SET ASIDE AND IN LIEU THEREOF JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT TO PAY APPELLANT’S TAXED COSTS OF ACTION AND OF APPEAL.

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - personal injuries - employer liability - failure to warn of possibility of carpal tunnel syndrome - whether risk of injury foreseeable - whether appellant should have warned respondent of such risk - causation - whether respondent would have acted pursuant to such warning - whether respondent’s condition pre-dated appellant’s breach of duty of care - whether warning would have avoided injury.
Turner v. The State of South Australia (1982) 56 ALJR 839 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The
Wagon Mound (No. 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617 Inverell Municipal Council v. Pennington (1993) Aust Torts Reports 81- 234 Sellars v. Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332 Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1075 QANTAS Airways Limited v. Cameron (1996) 66 FCR 246 Green v. Chenoweth (Court of Appeal, unreported, Appeal No. 10998 of 1996, judgment delivered 11 November, 1997) Ellis v. Wallsend District Hospital [1989] 17 NSWLR 553 H v. Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children (1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-000 Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australasia) Ltd v. Stapleton (Court of Appeal, unreported, Appeal No. 255 of 1995, judgment delivered 14 June, 1996)
Counsel:	Mr J A Griffin QC, with him Mr P O Land for the appellant Mr F W Redmond for the respondent
Solicitors:	Heiser Bayly & Mortensen for the appellant Crawford Law for the respondent
Hearing Date:	11 June 1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 11009 of 1997.

Brisbane

Before Pincus J.A. Demack J. Chesterman J.

[Hallmark-Mitex P/L v. Rybarczyk]

BETWEEN:

HALLMARK-MITEX PTY LTD
A.C.N. 010 920 091

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

MARIA RYBARCZYK

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 4 September 1998

I have read the reasons of Chesterman J. in which the nature of the case is fully explained; I am

in general agreement with those reasons. The learned primary judge discussed the time at which the

respondent’s cause of action in tort arose. His Honour said :

"The defendant’s obligation to warn the plaintiff was a continuing one from the middle of the 1980s, I find, but her cause of action in tort accrued on my assessment of the facts of the case only after that failure resulted in the only damage on which she is entitled to rely in claiming compensation: the deterioration of her condition beyond the 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 Hallmark-Mitex Pty Ltd v Rybarczyk 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: [1998] QCA 254
Decision Date: 4/09/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hallmark-Mitex Pty Ltd v Rybarczyk, the respondent, Ms Rybarczyk, sought compensation for injuries sustained at work. Ms Rybarczyk, who was employed as a press operator, alleged that her employer, Hallmark-Mitex Pty Ltd, was negligent in failing to warn her of the risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the employer owed a duty of care to warn the respondent about the foreseeable risk of CTS, whether such a warning would have been effective in preventing the injury, and whether Ms Rybarczyk's condition predated the alleged breach.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases such as Bolton v Stone and considered whether the risk of CTS was sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty of care. The court also examined whether Ms Rybarczyk would have acted on any warning given by the employer and whether the injury was an inevitable consequence of the employment. Additionally, the court assessed whether Ms Rybarczyk's condition was pre-existing or a result of the employer's negligence. The employer argued that the risk of CTS was not significant enough to warrant a warning and that Ms Rybarczyk's condition was pre-existing.

The Supreme Court found that Hallmark-Mitex Pty Ltd had a duty to warn Ms Rybarczyk of the risk of CTS. The court held that the risk was reasonably foreseeable and that a prudent employer would have warned an employee about such a risk. It was also determined that Ms Rybarczyk would likely have heeded the warning and taken appropriate action to mitigate the risk. The court concluded that the employer's failure to warn was a breach of the duty of care, and this breach contributed to Ms Rybarczyk's injury. The court rejected the employer's argument that the condition was pre-existing, finding instead that the injury was a result of the employer's negligence.

The court ordered Hallmark-Mitex Pty Ltd to compensate Ms Rybarczyk for the damages suffered due to the employer's breach of duty. The employer was held liable for the full extent of the damages, as it was found that the warning would likely have prevented the injury. This decision underscores the importance of employers taking proactive steps to identify and communicate risks to their employees to prevent injuries and potential liability.

Orders