Pascoe v Coolum Resort Pty Ltd

Pascoe, a housekeeper employed by Coolum Resort Pty Ltd, sustained personal injuries when she fell while crossing a garden bed adjacent to a roadway at the resort. The fall occurred due to an unaddressed depression at the intersection. Pascoe argued that the resort was negligent in not taking steps to mitigate the risk posed by the depression, which was known to other employees and was recognised as a potential hazard. The court was required to determine whether a reasonable person in the position of the resort would have taken additional steps to reduce the risk of injury.

The court considered several precedents, including Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council, which involved the standard of care owed by a council in relation to a known hazard. The court also referenced Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University, which involved a university's duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to an employee. The court distinguished between cases such as Australian Capital Territory v Badcock, where a council was found liable for failing to address a known hazard, and Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford, where the employer was not held liable for an employee's injury due to an unforeseeable hazard. The court concluded that a reasonable person in the position of the resort would have taken additional steps to address the known hazard of the depression.

The court found that the resort had failed to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of its employees by not addressing the known hazard of the depression. The resort's knowledge of the depression and its potential to cause injury meant that it was reasonably foreseeable that an employee could trip and injure themselves. The court held that the resort was negligent in not taking steps to mitigate this risk. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the resort was ordered to pay Pascoe's costs of the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed and the resort was to pay Pascoe's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis. The court's decision emphasised the importance of employers taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees by addressing known hazards.