Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited

The plaintiff, Karanfilov, sued Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited, the defendant, for damages resulting from injuries sustained at the defendant's chicken processing plant. The plaintiff's injury arose from the repetitive and strenuous nature of the work, compounded by inadequate workplace adjustments and insufficient training and supervision. The plaintiff, who was left-handed, was required to perform tasks that involved repeated abduction of the arm above shoulder height, tasks that were further complicated by the crowded working conditions. The plaintiff argued that these factors led to the injury, and that the employer failed in its statutory duty to provide a safe system of work.

The court had to determine whether the employer was liable for the injury under the statutory duty of care and whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable. The court also had to consider the interplay between the statutory scheme and common law principles, specifically whether contributory negligence could reduce damages under the WorkCover Queensland Act. The court had to interpret sections 312 and 314 of the Act to determine if they abrogated the common law rule that contributory negligence does not reduce damages for breach of contract. Additionally, the court had to assess the plaintiff's entitlement to damages for personal injury, including pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and the cost of professional services.

The court held that the employer was liable for the injury because the working conditions and tasks were inherently unsafe and not reasonably foreseeable. The court found that the employer's failure to provide adequate adjustments for the plaintiff's left-handedness and to ensure a safe working environment constituted a breach of the statutory duty of care. The court also held that sections 312 and 314 of the WorkCover Queensland Act did not abrogate the common law rule that contributory negligence does not reduce damages for breach of contract, but that the plaintiff's damages could be reduced for contributory negligence. The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and the cost of professional services. The court awarded the plaintiff $633,757.93 in damages.

Judgment is given for the plaintiff in the sum of $633,757.93. The argument will be heard as to costs.