DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Schafer v Glendale RV Syndication [2022] QDC 263
PARTIES:
DEBORA SCHAFER
(Plaintiff)
v
GLENDALE RV SYNDICATION PTY LTD
ACN 088 169 493
(Defendant)
FILE NO: 258/18
DIVISION:
District Court
PROCEEDING:
Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court
DELIVERED ON:
2 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Townsville
HEARING DATE:
15 – 17 February 2021
JUDGE:
Coker DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $397,952.93.
2. The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff’s costs upon the standard basis from 31 August 2018.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION – DAMAGES – where the plaintiff was employed as a chef by the defendant – where the plaintiff’s employment required food trays to be stacked in ovens and distribution trolleys – where the plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative condition in her shoulder – whether unsafe system of work caused injury – whether any pre-existing injuries are relevant to the causing of injury – where expert opinion supported the contention that the work practices were a risk – where expert medical opinion was that the work practices caused the onset of the injury – where a significant portion of the population have the same degenerative condition – whether the defendant had breached its duty of care – whether the risk of injury was foreseeable – whether the breach of duty caused the plaintiffs injury.
LEGISLATION:
Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), S 305B, 305C, 305D.
Civil Liability Act 2003CASES:
Berhane v Woolworths [2017] QCA 166.
Erickson v Bagley [2015] VSCA 200.
Reed v Warburton [2011] NSWCA 98.
Benic v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039.
Calvert v Mayne Nicklass Ltd (No 1) [2006] 1 Qd R 106.
Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland [2004] QCA 155.
Toth v ACI Australia (t/a Laminex Industries) 18/08/1995, unreported decision of Dowsett J.
Eaton v Putman [1991] 55 SASR 386.
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] 169 CLR 638.
COUNSEL: Mylne. P for the Plaintiff
Perkiss. O for the Defendant
SOLICITORS: O’Shea & Dyer Solicitors for the Plaintiff
BTLawyers for the Defendant
Introduction
On the 16th August 2016, Debora Schafer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiff’), commenced employment as a chef at Glendale Aged Care, an aged care facility operated by Glendale Syndication Pty Ltd ACN 088 169 493 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Defendant’). The Defendant’s business was conducted from the premises situated at 435 Dalrymple Road, Mt Louisa, Townsville.
The Plaintiff was employed as a chef by the Defendant from 16th August 2016 until the 10th February 2017, though it is more correct to suggest that that employment was until the 5th January 2017. On that day at approximately 4:00pm, the Plaintiff was working as a chef and in that capacity was preparing a stainless-steel tray to be inserted into a shelf of a steamer oven, which shelf was at approximately shoulder/head height.
The tray, though it cannot be exactly gauged, held several pans containing food; weighing,…
Continue reading Schafer v Glendale RV Syndication
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Schafer v Glendale RV Syndication [2022] QDC 263
- Case
- [2022] QDC 263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered expert evidence which supported the plaintiff's claim that the work practices were risky and that such practices caused the onset of her injury. The plaintiff's expert medical opinion was that the work practices were the direct cause of her injury. The court also noted that a significant portion of the population have the same degenerative condition as the plaintiff, but this did not negate the unsafe nature of the work practices. The court held that the defendant had indeed breached its duty of care by maintaining an unsafe system of work, and the risk of injury was foreseeable. The court found that the breach directly caused the plaintiff's injury.
Following the analysis, the court concluded that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injury and awarded damages in the sum of $397,952.93. Additionally, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs from a specified date. The judgment underscored the employer's responsibility to maintain a safe working environment and highlighted the consequences of failing to do so.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $397,952.93.
2. The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff’s costs upon the standard basis from 31 August 2018.
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.