In Vitro Technologies Pty Ltd v Taylor

Case [2011] QCA 44

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

In Vitro Technologies Pty Ltd v Taylor [2011] QCA 44

PARTIES:

IN VITRO TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD ABN 27 102 379 895
(appellant)
v
BENITA CAROL TAYLOR
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9210 of 2010
SC No 7039 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE – WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant (the ‘employer’) required all employees to use a plastic mat under their chair – where the respondent was injured whilst she was trying to resume her seat as a result of her chair sliding away from her over her mat – where the respondent gave evidence of a complaint made to the employer by a co-worker in the respondent’s presence about the use of the  mats – where the employer directed the respondent that the mats must remain so that all cubicles were the same – where the employer argued that the terms of the complaint did not suggest that the mats were slippery – where the employer argued the co-worker’s evidence was a reconstruction and unreliable –  where the trial judge accepted the respondent’s evidence of the slipperiness of the mat as credible and reliable – whether the trial judge erred in finding the employer negligent

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE INFERENCES OF FACT INVOLVED – WHERE FACTS IN DISPUTE – where the employer argued the respondent had confined her case to suggesting that the chair moved whilst she stood up – where the employer had cross-examined the respondent in relation to whether the chair moved whilst she was trying to resume her seat – where the precise moment of the chair’s movement was not critical to the respondent’s case – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the chair moved whilst the respondent was attempting to resume her seat

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – OTHER CASES – where the trial judge accepted the respondent’s oral evidence as to the slipperiness of her mat – where the trial judge remarked that the employer had not called expert evidence or tendered the mat – where expert evidence was not essential for the respondent to succeed in her case – whether the trial judge reversed the onus of proof

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION – ADEQUACY…

Continue reading In Vitro Technologies Pty Ltd v Taylor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
In Vitro Technologies Pty Ltd v Taylor [2011] QCA 44
Case
[2011] QCA 44
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Vitro Technologies Pty Ltd v Taylor is a case in which the respondent, an employee of the appellant, was injured while trying to resume her seat as a result of her chair sliding away from her over a plastic mat. The respondent sued the appellant for negligence, claiming that the employer was liable for her injuries because the mats were slippery. The trial judge found the employer negligent, awarding the respondent damages for her injuries. The employer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding the employer negligent, and that the damages awarded were excessive.

The legal issues in the case included whether the trial judge erred in finding the employer negligent, whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons for accepting the respondent’s evidence over the employer’s evidence, whether the trial judge’s assessment of damages was adequate, and whether the damages awarded were excessive. The employer argued that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for accepting the respondent’s evidence over the employer’s evidence, and that the trial judge had reversed the onus of proof by accepting the respondent’s oral evidence without expert evidence or the mat itself being tendered. The employer also argued that the damages awarded were excessive because the respondent’s employment after leaving the employer involved substantially the same salary, and because the respondent voluntarily moved to Cairns with her husband to make a ‘fresh start’ and suffered a marital breakdown.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in finding the employer negligent, and that the trial judge gave adequate reasons for accepting the respondent’s evidence over the employer’s evidence. The court held that the trial judge’s assessment of damages was adequate, and that the damages awarded were not excessive. The court found that the trial judge had considered the critical aspects of the evidence and identified factors which bore upon his assessment of damages, and that the assessments of past and future economic loss were not capable of precise proof. The court also found that the respondent’s voluntary move to Cairns did not necessarily mean that she had not suffered a loss of earnings, and that the respondent’s employability on the open market was significantly adversely affected. The appeal was dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis

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.