Michel v Broadlex Services Pty Ltd

Michel was an employee of Broadlex Services Pty Ltd who suffered injuries after rushing to answer a phone call. He brought an action for damages against Broadlex, alleging that it was negligent in failing to take steps to prevent him from rushing to answer phone calls. Broadlex denied liability, arguing that any risk of harm was insignificant and that a reasonable person would not have taken precautions in the circumstances. The court was required to determine whether Broadlex breached its duty of care, whether the risk of harm was insignificant, and whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions in the circumstances.

The court held that Broadlex owed Michel a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent him from rushing to answer phone calls, given that the risk of harm was foreseeable. The court found that the risk of harm was not insignificant and that a reasonable person would have taken precautions to prevent Michel from rushing to answer phone calls. The court held that the circumstances giving rise to the risk of injury were recurring circumstances, and that it was relevant to consider whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions in those circumstances. The court found that Broadlex did not take reasonable steps to prevent Michel from rushing to answer phone calls, and that this was a breach of its duty of care. The court found that the breach caused Michel’s injuries, and that Broadlex was liable for damages.

The court ordered Broadlex to pay Michel general damages in the amount of $15,000 and costs. The court also ordered that Michel’s claim for aggravated damages be dismissed.