Lewis v Woolworths Limited

Case [2018] ACTSC 200


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Lewis v Woolworths Limited

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 200

Hearing Dates:

5-8 June 2018

DecisionDate:

1 August 2018

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [110]

Catchwords:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Breach of duty admitted – whether defendant’s negligence caused harm – workplace accident – back pain following accident – aggravation of asymptomatic back condition – detrimental psychological impact of chronic pain – held workplace injury led to significant and long-term aggravation of back condition and with pain psychologically corrosive –significant uncertainty affecting assessment of damages – damages awarded – future economic loss assessed by way of a buffer

Legislation Cited:

Court Procedure Rules, r 1203, sch 1 cl 1.2(1)

Parties:

Jessica Lewis (Plaintiff)

Woolworths Limited (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

B Roberts SC and R Clynes (Plaintiff)

M Windsor (Respondent)

Solicitors

United Legal (Plaintiff)

King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent)

File Number:

SC 158 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff was injured while working at the Big W store in Gungahlin which was operated by the defendant.  Breach of duty has been admitted.  This case is an assessment of damages.

Background

  1. The plaintiff was born in 1996.  She attended Year 7 at Monaro High School in Cooma, Years 8 to 10 at Gold Creek High School and Years 11 and 12 at Gungahlin College.  While at school she worked as a casual employee at McDonald’s and Domino’s Pizzas.  In February 2013, she commenced work at Big W in its Gungahlin store.  She did not work set hours.  She was described as a “recovery associate” who would spend three hours returning items to the shelves and cleaning them up.

  1. She completed Year 12 in November 2013.  In December of that year she was employed on a permanent part-time basis with Big W.  That employment required her to work a minimum number of hours with the option of working extra hours if they were offered.

  1. Since Year 10 her ambition had been to become a paramedic.  The Australian Catholic University (ACU) offered a course specifically targeted at paramedics, namely a Bachelor of Paramedicine/Nursing.  She did not achieve a sufficiently high Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) to get into this course.  However, she understood that she could do a science degree with anatomy units and then, if her results were adequate, transfer to other university courses.  In February 2014, she enrolled in a Bachelor of Medical Science at the University of Canberra but, prior to incurring any HECS-HELP (Higher Education Contribution Scheme-Higher Education Loan Program) debt, deferred her studies until the commencement of second semester.  She recommenced university in August 2014.

  1. She completed her first semester of the Bachelor of Medical Science with two distinctions and a credit.  She withdrew from one unit.  She managed to do this whilst maintaining her employment at Big W which required her to work on Friday and for the full day on Saturday and Sunday.  She also regularly attended the gym, going five or six times a week.

  1. She enrolled…

Continue reading Lewis v Woolworths Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lewis v Woolworths Limited [2018] ACTSC 200
Case
[2018] ACTSC 200
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Lewis, brought a claim against Woolworths Limited, her employer, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during a workplace accident. The incident involved the plaintiff falling down a flight of stairs, leading to a claim for damages related to her physical injuries and psychological impact. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's negligence caused the harm and, if so, the extent of the damages to be awarded.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the defendant's admitted negligence resulted in the plaintiff's back pain and the extent of the damages for the physical injuries and psychological impact. The court had to consider whether the workplace accident significantly aggravated an asymptomatic back condition and whether the chronic pain had a psychologically corrosive effect on the plaintiff. Additionally, the court faced the challenge of assessing future economic loss due to the significant uncertainty surrounding the plaintiff's ability to work in the future.

The court found that the workplace accident did lead to a significant and long-term aggravation of the plaintiff's back condition, which had a detrimental psychological impact. The chronic pain experienced by the plaintiff was deemed to be psychologically corrosive. However, due to the significant uncertainty about the plaintiff's future capacity to work, the court assessed future economic loss by applying a buffer to the calculation. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account the psychological impact of the chronic pain and the uncertainty regarding her future employment prospects.

The court ordered Woolworths Limited to pay the plaintiff the assessed damages, reflecting the significant and long-term aggravation of her back condition and the psychological impact of chronic pain. The court also provided for future economic loss through a buffer, acknowledging the uncertainties involved in such assessments.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [110]

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.