Paul Bernard Farrell v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 - [2001] ACTSC 75

Paul Bernard Farrell v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675
[2001] ACTSC 75 (3 August 2001)

CATCHWORDS

DAMAGES – Personal injury – Failure to provide safe system of work – Disc injury - Aggravation of pre-existing degenerative condition.

Commonwealth of Australia v Martone, unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Gallop, Jenkinson and Wilcox JJ, 27 March 1991

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 193 CLR 161

Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Nominal Defendant v Gardikiotis (1996) 186 CLR 49

Wilson v Piesly (1975) 7 ALR 571

No. SC 808 of 1996

Coram: Master T. Connolly
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 3 August 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 808 of 1996
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: PAUL BERNARD FARRELL
Plaintiff

AND: WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675

Defendant

ORDER

Coram:  Master T. Connolly
Date:  3 August 2001
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $211,001.17.
Parties have leave to relist for any submissions in relation to the appropriate interest to be awarded in respect of past out of pocket expenses.
The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs.

This is a claim for damages for personal injuries arising from an industrial accident which the plaintiff says occurred on or about Australia Day 1991 when he was working as a casual shop assistant at the Woolworths supermarket at Mawson in the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiff’s case is that he was working in the liquor store, and his duties required him to unload stock from a series of pallets that were placed near the entrance to the liquor store when he was not attending to customers. His evidence is that he was required to walk through a narrow gap between pallets carrying two cartons of beer, and that while attempting to negotiate this path he fell, jarring his back, and thus aggravating a previously asymptomatic degenerative condition. He pleads that this was an unsafe system of work.

He further pleaded that Woolworths were negligent in allowing him to continue in his routine duties, which involved regular lifting of heavy cartons of stock, when they were aware of his back injury. This, it was pleaded, lead to a further incident in January 1992. It was common ground that no accident report form was filled in until January 1992, and although the plaintiff says that he told his supervisor of the accident, one of the relevant supervisors gave evidence that she was never told, and the other has a recollection of being told about back pains, but could not say when this occurred. It is common ground that the plaintiff’s back condition became more severe in early 1992, that is about a year after the accident, and that he took some time off on compensation benefits from this time. In the absence of any report of injury form, and given the vagueness of the evidence about oral complaints, I am not satisfied that the claim that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Paul Bernard Farrell v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675

Details

AGLC: Paul Bernard Farrell v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 [2001] ACTSC 75
Case: [2001] ACTSC 75
Decision Date: 3 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Bernard Farrell sued Woolworths Limited for personal injuries arising from a workplace incident, alleging that the company failed to provide a safe system of work, resulting in a disc injury that aggravated his pre-existing degenerative condition. The case was heard by the court, which had to determine whether Woolworths was negligent in failing to ensure a safe work environment and whether the injury suffered by Farrell was a direct result of this failure.

The court considered whether Woolworths had breached its duty of care by not providing a safe system of work, leading to Farrell’s disc injury. It also assessed whether the injury was a result of the aggravation of an existing degenerative condition rather than the initial injury itself. The key issue was the extent to which the pre-existing condition contributed to the injury and the extent to which Woolworths was responsible for the failure to provide a safe work environment.

The court found that Woolworths was indeed negligent in its duty to provide a safe system of work, as it failed to implement proper lifting techniques and adequate supervision, which directly led to Farrell’s injury. The court determined that the injury was a result of the aggravation of the pre-existing degenerative condition, which was exacerbated by the workplace incident. The court awarded damages to Farrell, acknowledging the severity of his condition and the impact on his quality of life. The court ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the specified amount, allowed the parties to relist for submissions regarding interest on past out of pocket expenses, and required Woolworths to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $211,001.17.

Parties have leave to relist for any submissions in relation to the appropriate interest to be awarded in respect of past out of pocket expenses.

The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs.

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.