Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd - [2023] QDC 139

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 139

PARTIES:

REINALDO MANCA
(Plaintiff)

v

TEYS AUSTRALIA BEENLEIGH PTY LTD

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 2724/2021

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

18 August 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18, 19, 20 July 2023

JUDGE:

Barlow KC, DCJ

ORDERS:

The plaintiff’s claim be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was injured after slipping down stairs –the plaintiff sustained a broken rib and soft tissue injury in the area of his scapulothoracic spine – whether employer had failed to implement proper safety precautions or was otherwise negligent – whether the employee was contributorily negligent – assessment of damages

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 305B, s 305C, s 305D, s 305E, s 305F, s 305G, s 305H, s 305I
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2004 (Qld)

Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301, cited
Green v Hanson Constructions Materials Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 260, followed
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, cited
Hoekstra v Residual Assco Industries Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 564, cited

COUNSEL:

W Campbell for the plaintiff

J Hewson for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Jonathan C Whiting & Associates Lawyers for the plaintiff

BT Lawyers for the defendant

Contents

Summary

Relevant principles

The allegations of negligence

The blooding floor, the surrounding area and the system of work

What caused Mr Manca’s fall?

Was there a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of injury?

The parties’ submissions

Instructions to use handrails

Was there a hose at the washdown cubicle?

Could Mr Manca use the handrail?

There was no foreseeable risk

Alternatively, risk not significant

Conclusions on liability

Contributory negligence

Mr Manca’s injuries and impairment

Medical evidence on pre-trial assessments

Medical assessments on video evidence

Findings on Mr Manca’s impairments

Assessment of loss

Loss of earnings (past)

Loss of future earning capacity

General damages

Special damages (past and future)

Summary of loss

Conclusions and result

Summary

Eduardo Manca was employed by the defendant (Teys) at its meatworks in Beenleigh, where he commenced his employment as a meatworker in June 2019. He was well experienced as a meatworker, having worked in that capacity in Brazil and in Ireland for many years.
On 11 February 2020, having just completed his shift on what is known as the blooding floor, Mr Manca slipped on some steps and fell backwards, hurting his side. He alleges that he broke a rib and suffered a soft tissue injury on his left side and, although the rib has subsequently healed, he continues to be in permanent and considerable pain that causes him to sleep poorly and to be unable to lift his left arm above approximately horizontal without considerable pain. As a consequence, he has been unable to work further in the meat industry or, as he had hoped, in the mining industry. He has been forced to work as a hairdresser (in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QDC 139
Decision Date: 18 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Manca, was an employee of Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd. He sustained injuries after slipping down stairs at work, resulting in a broken rib and a soft tissue injury in the area of his scapulothoracic spine. Manca sought compensation from his employer, alleging that the employer had failed to implement proper safety precautions or had otherwise been negligent. He also claimed that he was not contributorily negligent. The case was heard and determined in the District Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine whether the employer had breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the plaintiff's own actions contributed to his injuries and, if so, to what extent. If the employer was found to be negligent, the court also had to assess the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.

The court found that the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees, including the installation of handrails and the maintenance of the stairs in a safe condition. It was also determined that the plaintiff's injuries were primarily caused by his own actions, which were a significant contributing factor. As a result, the plaintiff's claim for damages was dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed, and there were no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff’s claim be dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 139
PARTIES:	REINALDO MANCA (Plaintiff)
v
TEYS AUSTRALIA BEENLEIGH PTY LTD (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 2724/2021
DIVISION:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	18 August 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18, 19, 20 July 2023
JUDGE:	Barlow KC, DCJ
ORDERS:	The plaintiff’s claim be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was injured after slipping down stairs –the plaintiff sustained a broken rib and soft tissue injury in the area of his scapulothoracic spine – whether employer had failed to implement proper safety precautions or was otherwise negligent – whether the employee was contributorily negligent – assessment of damages Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 305B, s 305C, s 305D, s 305E, s 305F, s 305G, s 305H, s 305I Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2004 (Qld) Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301, cited Green v Hanson Constructions Materials Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 260, followed McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, cited Hoekstra v Residual Assco Industries Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 564, cited
COUNSEL:	W Campbell for the plaintiff J Hewson for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Jonathan C Whiting & Associates Lawyers for the plaintiff BT Lawyers for the defendant