Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 75 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd [2024] QCA 60

PARTIES:

REINALDO MANCA
(appellant)
v
TEYS AUSTRALIA BEENLEIGH PTY LTD
ACN 009 672 459
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11513 of 2023
DC No 2724 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane – [2023] QDC 139 (Barlow DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2024

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Fraser AJA and Applegarth J

ORDER:

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – NEGLIGENCE AND OTHER TORTS – where the appellant slipped and fell on steps at his employer’s meatworks and was injured – where the appellant alleged that the slip was the result of the steps being covered in blood and other substances, or because the steps were damaged or worn – where the trial judge found that the appellant had not proved the cause of his fall – where the trial judge made findings of fact about the state of the steps at the time of the fall and found that the respondent had not breached its duty to the appellant in the respects that the appellant pleaded – where the appellant challenges several findings of fact made by the trial judge – whether the factual findings made by the trial judge should be set aside because the conclusions are glaringly improbable, or contrary to compelling inferences, or wrong – whether the evidence proved that the pleaded breaches of duty were established and caused the appellant’s injuries

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – where the appellant’s pleaded case alleged that the steps were damaged and worn and covered in blood and other fluids/substances from recently slaughtered carcasses and that these matters gave rise to a breach of duty – where the appellant’s pleadings at trial did not allege that a necessary precaution was to instruct him when he came to undertake new work in a new and very different work location about carrying equipment on the steps – whether the trial judge erred in confining the appellant to his pleaded case

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 149, r 157
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305C, s 305D

Banque Commerciale SA (In liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11, cited
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424; [2001] FCA 1833, cited
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67, cited
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317; [2003] HCA 51, cited
Erickson v Bagley [2015] VSCA 220, cited
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8, cited
Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28, cited
Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 139, cited
Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd…

CaseChat AU logo

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
[2024] QCA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd, the appellant, Mr Manca, brought an action against his employer, Teys, following an injury he sustained when he slipped and fell on steps at the Beenleigh meatworks. Mr Manca alleged that the slip was due to the steps being covered in blood and other substances, or because the steps were damaged or worn. The primary judge found that Mr Manca had not proved the cause of his fall and dismissed his claim. Mr Manca appealed, challenging several findings of fact and the conclusion that Teys was not negligent.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the findings of fact made by the trial judge should be set aside due to being glaringly improbable, contrary to compelling inferences, or wrong. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the evidence proved that the pleaded breaches of duty were established and caused Mr Manca’s injuries. Another issue was whether the trial judge erred in confining Mr Manca to his pleaded case, particularly given that he did not allege a necessary precaution about carrying equipment on the steps in his pleadings at trial.

The court held that Mr Manca had failed to overturn the findings of fact which he contended were erroneous. The findings were sufficient to allow the judge to reach the conclusions on foreseeability, significant risk, reasonable precautions, and causation. The evidence did not support Mr Manca’s allegations that the steps were covered in blood or other substances at the time of his fall. The court found that the trial judge’s ultimate conclusion that Mr Manca had not proved that he slipped due to a failure by Teys to take reasonable precautions was not in error. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Mr Manca’s notice of appeal challenges numerous factual findings and the conclusion that Teys was not negligent.Background For several months in late 2019 and early 2020, Mr Manca worked on a part of the “kill floor” at Teys’ Beenleigh meatworks. His work was slicing meat to remove fat and using a saw to cut briskets. About a week before being injured on 11 February 2020, Mr Manca was transferred to do different work in a different environment on “the blooding floor”. Unlike his previous work, his work on the blooding floor required him to come and go up via stairs. They consisted of six concrete steps. The blooding floor, the area surrounding it and the system of work, are carefully and clearly explained in the primary judge’s comprehensive reasons.[2] The details are confronting but it is necessary to summarise them to understand the evidence and the issues.[2]Manca at [12]-[18]. Cattle are brought into the meatworks and each animal is rendered unconscious. An animal’s throat is then cut in a Halal manner, which kills it. The body is then transported on a conveyor belt at the start of the blooding floor. It is lifted onto an overhead conveyor from which it is hung by its rear legs. Two workers are on the blooding floor. The first slices the carcass with a knife, releasing a large amount of blood onto the floor. It is then conveyed to the second worker who undertakes additional cutting. In one shift these workers would usually deal with between 700 and 800 cattle. Because of this process, a large amount of blood, sometimes up to 20 centimetres deep, accumulates on the blooding floor. The blooding floor has a large drain in the middle through which blood is pumped and later processed. Workers on the blooding floor are supplied by Teys with a strong, thick, rubber apron that reaches from the chest to a few centimetres above their gumboots. These boots are also supplied by Teys and have deep-treaded soles. The workers have their own knives. They are kept in a specially designed plastic pouch that is strapped to the worker’s waist. The workers also have sharpening tools that are kept in the pouch. In addition, Mr Manca used a sharpening stone. The workers are required to sterilise their knives before starting work and also during their shift. Immediately adjacent to the blooding floor are two metal washdown cubicles that open onto the blooding floor. There is a kind of showerhead in each cubicle which is automatically activated when the workers come to wash and re‑sterilise their tools. While they do that, two “floor boys” might go onto the blooding floor and use squeegees to push the bulk of the blood into the drain and activate a pump to extract the blood. The two workers then return to the blooding floor until a lunch break or the end of their shift. At the end of the shift, the workers each use a washdown cubicle to wash their tools and rinse off their apron and their boots. Mr Manca denied, but Teys proved, that there was a hose with a trigger-head in each washdown cubicle that could be used to wash aprons and boots, including the soles of the boots, at the end of a shift. It is not a high-pressure hose for multiple reasons. One reason is to prevent excess water entering the blooding floor and contaminating the blood that is to be processed. Another reason is that the washdown in the metal cubicle on the blooding floor is only intended to be a preliminary washdown. After they descend the stairs, the workers proceed to another area with their tools where there are full washing facilities. The workers’ aprons and boots are taken from them and washed by other employees, to be ready for a later shift.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Teys alleged that Mr Manca failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. The incident was alleged to have been caused by Mr Manca’s actions in failing to conduct a full apron wash and boot wash, failing to carry equipment in one hand, failing to make use of the handrail and thereby failing to comply with the required procedure.The evidence at the trial Unsurprisingly, given the disputed allegations in Mr Manca’s pleading about the steps being “damaged and worn” and “covered in blood and other fluids/substances”, a substantial part of the evidence related to the state of the steps and whether blood and other substances from recently slaughtered carcasses caused Mr Manca to slip. The evidence, which I will not recount in detail at this point, did not support a finding that there was blood, or indeed water, in any significant quantity, on the steps where Mr Manca slipped and fell. When it was put to him in cross-examination that there was no blood on the stairs at the time of the incident, Mr Manca responded “[i]n my boots has the blood”. I should mention that Mr Manca grew up in Brazil and English is not his first language. He was then asked the following question:“MS HEWSON: You didn’t see blood on the stairs, did you?---No. I didn’t say. You asked me if you have a blood in [sic] the stairs, I say I have a blood in my boots.HIS HONOUR: No. But the question was, was there any blood on the stairs?---Yes, sir. I don’t remember exactly if it have on the stairs. But in my boots, a hundred per cent sure I have it.MS HEWSON: Did you look at your boots at the time of the incident?---I don’t need to look. I just tried to stand up because I scratched my arm. I tried to stand up and the floor – the floor is so dirt [sic] and I have to stand up with my tools in [sic] the floor.” As noted, Mr Rodrigues did not see blood, water or other substances on the steps when he viewed them from about four metres away, shortly after the incident. The photographs that were taken by either Mr Manca or Teys’ employees after the event, either on the day in question or at a later date, do not show steps that are wet or covered in blood. Only the first photograph was taken on the day of the incident. Photographs 2 and 3 were taken by Mr Manca on a later date. Mr Fry, who worked in the “knocking box” not far from the steps in question, gave evidence of having whinged about the steps “all the time” because they used to get bloodied.[6] His evidence was that blood would “splash up onto the steps” on occasions if drains beneath the blooding floor became blocked, and blood would get on the steps from people walking from the bleeding area. The amount of blood that was on the steps would vary from time to time. If the blood pit was “running fine” it “really wasn’t that bad”.[7] Mr Fry had never fallen on the steps. On the day of the incident, he did not see Mr Manca fall, but he did see him getting up from the floor. Mr Fry could not say whether there was any blood on the steps or whether they were slippery at the time. His evidence was that “if there was no blood on them, no, they weren’t slippery, but with blood on them, yes, they were”.[8][6]Manca at [23].[7]Manca at [24].[8]Manca at [25].

Decision

Reasons for decision

In addition, in circumstances in which the mechanism of his slip and fall was uncertain, he could not prove that one of the additional precautions pleaded by him probably would have prevented the fall. For example, having not proven that he slipped because the edge of a step was defective, and having not proven that metal capping would have significantly altered the risk of him slipping in the way that he did, he encountered a problem with the second aspect of factual causation. However, his main problem on causation was that neither his evidence nor any other evidence proved what caused him to slip and fall.Conclusion on the appeal Mr Manca has failed to overturn the findings of fact about which he contends the judge erred. Those findings of fact were sufficient to allow the judge to reach the conclusions that he did on foreseeability, significant risk, reasonable precautions, and causation. The judge’s ultimate finding that Mr Manca had not proved that he slipped due to a failure by Teys to take reasonable precautions, namely the reasonable precautions pleaded by Mr Manca, was not in error. I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.