Michael Brooker v Adecco Australia & Adecco Centacom P/L & Australian Capital Territory

[2002] ACTSC 71

Michael Brooker v Adecco Australia & Adecco Centacom P/L & Australian Capital Territory [2002] ACTSC 71 (26 July 2002)

CATCHWORDS

DAMAGES – Assessment – personal injury – employment accident – Soft tissue injuries – no issue of principle

Ramsay v Watson (1960) 108 CLR 463
State Rail Authority (NSW) v Earthline Constructions (1999) ALJR 306 at 329

Young, P.W., Scientific Fact Finding (1999) 73 ALJ 233

No. SC 146 of 2000

Coram:        Master T. Connolly
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date:           26 July 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 146 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:Michael Brooker

Plaintiff

AND:Adecco Australia/Adecco Centacom Pty Limited

First Defendant

AND:Australian Capital Territory

Second Defendant

ORDER

Coram:  Master T. Connolly
Date:  26 July 2002
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants in the sum of $129,578.18

1. Parties to be heard on costs

1. This is a claim for damages for personal injuries arising from an employment related accident which occurred in May 1998.  The plaintiff was employed as a landscape gardener working towards the preparation of Commonwealth Park in Canberra for the Floriade flower festival.  He was originally employed in February 1997 by an agency of the Australian Capital Territory government, but this changed with the contracting out of services to Adecco Australia Limited.  He has brought this action against both defendants, and counsel for the defendants advised me that no issue of attribution would arise, and a judgment for the plaintiff should be against both defendants.  Liability was not in issue, and the matter proceeded by way of an assessment of damages only.

1. Mr Brooker was born in 1969, and had difficulties with his schooling.  Mr Sutton, a psychologist who has provided treatment and reports in his case, has said that he has reading levels to the equivalent of year six only, which is barely functional for everyday purposes.  He has always had manual employment, and for nearly 12 years worked in a tyre retreading factory, rising to be foreman.  He left this job shortly before the firm went out of business, and obtained the gardening employment.

1. The plaintiff’s duties were to drive a small dump truck delivering soil and compost from a central tipping site to the various prepared flower beds around Commonwealth Park.  The vehicle was steered from the rear wheels, and has a capacity of about 1.5 cubic metres, and is able to move around on the pedestrian paths throughout the park area.  The operator sits at the rear of the vehicle, and the plaintiff’s case is that the seat was faulty so that he was subjected to excessive jolting.  He says that on 15 May 1998 he was in discomfort as he was operating the vehicle, and he reported to his foreman that he had hurt his back.  He said his back was tight and aching.  His supervisor instructed him to continue to operate the vehicle, but to drive slowly and carefully.  After three days the plaintiff…