Schafer v Glendale RV Syndication

Case [2022] QDC 263


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 2003

CASES:

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

Details
AGLC
Schafer v Glendale RV Syndication [2022] QDC 263
Case
[2022] QDC 263
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schafer v Glendale RV Syndication involved a dispute where the plaintiff, employed as a chef by the defendant, alleged that she sustained an injury due to an unsafe system of work. The plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative condition in her shoulder, and her employment required her to stack food trays in ovens and use distribution trolleys. The primary issues before the court were whether the unsafe system of work caused the injury and whether the pre-existing condition was relevant to the causation of the injury. The court had to determine if the defendant breached its duty of care, whether the risk of injury was foreseeable, and if the breach caused the plaintiff's injury.

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.