DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Norsgaard v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) [2022] QDC 260
PARTIES:
LUCY VICTORIA NORSGAARD
(plaintiff)
v
ALDI STORES (A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)
(ABN 90 196 565 019)
(defendant)
FILE NO:
1872/21
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
22 November 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
13 – 15 July and 5 August 2022
JUDGE:
Jarro DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $157,767.71.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a store person – where the plaintiff sustained an injury to the lumbar spine – where it is the plaintiff’s case that the injury was a consequence of the defendant failing to adequately train the plaintiff in manual handling techniques, an activity which the plaintiff says carried with it a clear risk of injury – whether adequate practical & module manual handling training was conducted.
DUTY OF CARE – employer’s liability – unnecessary risk of foreseeable injury – whether employer took reasonable steps to provide a safe place of work and a safe system of work – Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA) ss. 305B & 305C – whether duty of care has been breached under s. 305B of the WCRA.
DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES
LEGISLATION:
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 Qld ss. 305, 305B & 305C
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 Qld Sch 8
CASES:
COUNSEL: R J Lynch and N I Congram for the plaintiff
S McNeil for the defendant
SOLICITORS: Kartelo Law for the plaintiff
BT Lawyers for the defendant
The plaintiff in this matter seeks recovery of damages for injuries said to have been sustained in the course of her employment, as a store person, with the defendant on 28 June 2019. Both liability and quantum are in dispute. For the reasons that follow, it is my view that liability has been proven and the plaintiff’s damages are assessed in the amount of $157,767.71.
Background
In around May 2018, the plaintiff commenced part-time employment as a store person at the defendant’s store in the suburb of Brassall. As part of her duties, she was required to undertake the unloading and stacking of stock from what is known as an “ambient pallet”. That task, she says, was required to be completed in no more than 20 minutes.
It is largely not in contest what occurred on the day the plaintiff injured herself. At approximately 7:55 pm on 28 June 2019, in aisle 6 of the Aldi Brassall store, the plaintiff was required to undertake the unloading and stacking of stock from an ambient pallet. She lifted three cardboard trays from the pallet. Each cardboard tray had 12 tins of canned tomatoes which weighed approximately five kilograms, such that the plaintiff was lifting approximately 15 kilograms in total. As she performed the lift, she was bent over at the waist and her trunk was…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Norsgaard v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] QDC 260
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether Aldi Stores had taken reasonable steps to provide a safe workplace and a safe system of work, in line with the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA) sections 305B and 305C. The plaintiff argued that the employer's failure to provide adequate practical and module manual handling training created an unnecessary risk of foreseeable injury, thereby breaching their duty of care. The court had to determine whether the employer's actions or omissions fell below the standard of care expected under these provisions.
In ruling in favour of the plaintiff, the court concluded that Aldi Stores did not provide adequate manual handling training, which was a breach of their duty of care under section 305B of the WCRA. The court found that the employer's failure to provide such training created an unnecessary risk of foreseeable injury, and this directly contributed to the plaintiff's lumbar spine injury. The court awarded the plaintiff $157,767.71 in damages, covering her personal injuries.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $157,767.71.
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.