Legal Research
Cases
Karatjas v Deakin University

Karatjas v Deakin University

Case [2012] VSCA 53 28 March 2012

Negligence

Duty of Care

Statutory Construction

Tort Law

Occupational Health and Safety Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2011 0026
ANNE KARATJAS	Appellant
v
DEAKIN UNIVERSITY	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NETTLE and HANSEN JJA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	15 March 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	28 March 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 53
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Karatjas v Deakin University (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Cohen, 10 February 2011)

---

NEGLIGENCE – Duty of care – University – Contractor engaged by University to conduct on-campus cafeteria – Employee of contractor violently attacked by third party while walking from cafeteria to on-campus car-park – University having exclusive management and control of university campus, including provision and regulation of on-campus car-parks and means of access to and from on-campus car-parks – Whether University owed duty to contractor’s employee to take reasonable care to prevent violent attack by third party while walking on path from cafeteria to on-campus car-park – Relevance of University’s statutory obligation as person having management and control of workplace to provide means of leaving workplace without risks to health – Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, distinguished; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420, considered; Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; Chomentowski v Red Garter Restaurant (1970) 29 WN (NSW) 1070, Fraser and Fraser v State Transport Authority (1985) 29 SASR 5, Sartori v Public Transport Corporation [1997] 1 VR 168, English v Rogers [2005] NSWCA 327, applied – Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic), s 26.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J Ruskin QC with Ms B Y Knoester	Zaparas Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr R J Stanley QC with Mr A W Middleton	Moray & Agnew

NETTLE JA:

This is an appeal from a judgment and verdict for the respondent (‘Deakin’) which was entered by direction after the trial judge ruled that Deakin did not owe the appellant (‘Mrs Karatjas’) a duty to take care to prevent her being assaulted by a third party while walking from the cafeteria to the car-park on the Deakin University Melbourne campus at Burwood.

The facts

The evidence at trial was not all the one way. For the purposes, however, of determining to direct the jury to return a verdict in favour of Deakin, the judge was required to proceed on the view of the evidence most favourable to Mrs Karatjas which it was open to the jury to take.[1] The following statement of the facts is similarly based upon the view of the evidence most favourable to Mrs Karatjas which it was open to the jury to take.
[1]Naxakis v Western General Hospital and Anor (1999) 197 CLR 269, 271–2 [2] (Gleeson CJ), 273 [12] (Gaudron J), 284 [45] (McHugh J), 289 [58] (Kirby J).

At relevant times, Deakin retained Wilson Security to provide security on the campus. That consisted principally of the provision of two security officers…

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.

Continue reading Karatjas v Deakin University

Details

AGLC: Karatjas v Deakin University [2012] VSCA 53
Case: [2012] VSCA 53
Decision Date: 28 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Karatjas v Deakin University involved a dispute where an employee of a contractor engaged by the University was violently attacked by a third party while walking from the university cafeteria to an on-campus car-park. The victim sought to hold the University liable for the attack, arguing that the institution owed a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent such an incident. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to decide whether the University owed a duty of care to the employee of the contractor. The central issue was whether the University, which had exclusive management and control of the campus, including the provision and regulation of on-campus car parks and the means of access to and from those car parks, had a duty to protect the employee from the risks associated with walking on the path from the cafeteria to the car park. The court needed to consider the statutory obligations of the University under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and how these obligations impacted the duty of care.

The court found that the University did owe a duty of care to the employee. It held that the University's exclusive management and control of the campus, including the paths and car parks, meant it had a responsibility to ensure that the means of leaving the workplace were without risks to health. The court distinguished the case from Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil, holding that the statutory obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act were pertinent. It applied precedents from Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd, Chomentowski v Red Garter Restaurant, Fraser and Fraser v State Transport Authority, Sartori v Public Transport Corporation, and English v Rogers to find that the University's control over the campus was sufficient to establish a duty of care.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered the University to compensate the victim for the injuries sustained in the attack. The court's decision emphasized the importance of statutory obligations and control in determining the scope of a duty of care in such contexts.

Orders