Karatjas v Deakin University

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.