Schmidt v. Woolworths (Qld) P/L & Anor - [2009] QSC 106

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schmidt v Woolworths (Qld) P/L & Anor [2009] QSC 106

PARTIES:

DANIEL CHARLES SCHMIDT
(plaintiff)
v
WOOLWORTHS (QUEENSLAND) PTY LTD
(first defendant)
CROWN EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2102 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25, 26, 27, March 2009 and 24 April 2009

JUDGE:

Dutney J

ORDER:

1. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $442,402.46.

2. The claim against the second defendant is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS- NEGLIGENCE –GENERAL MATTERS- Where the plaintiff was an employee of the first defendant- where the plaintiff was injured at the first defendants distribution centre- where the first defendant found to be liable for negligence of the maintenance mechanic in failing to properly maintain equipment- where the second defendant was the manufacturer of the equipment – where argued the design of the equipment was negligent -where design found not to be flawed

Evidence Act 1997 (Qld), s 92
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, s 315
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld)

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

COUNSEL:

J A Griffin QC with him Mr A J Williams for the plaintiff
R Morton for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

GB F e-lawyers for the plaintiff
DLA Phillips Fox for the defendants

The plaintiff, Daniel Charles Schmidt, was injured at the first defendant’s distribution centre at Acacia Ridge on 14 November 2002.

Facts

Mr Schmidt had been employed by Woolworths for approximately two years prior to the accident performing a variety of tasks, including making up orders, stacking pallets, or wrapping pallets. Pallet movers were provided to assist in moving pallets into, out of, or around the centre.

A pallet mover is a machine with tines like a forklift used for picking up the pallets and moving them short distances. The pallet movers provided by Woolworths were electrically operated and designed to be walked beside or stood on. The machines had a narrow platform at the front on which the operator could stand when necessary.

The pallet movers were operated by means of a movable arm; the arm moved up and down. The machine was controlled by means of twist grips on the arm and a number of buttons. The machine moved forwards or backwards depending on the direction in which the twist grip was turned. The machine was steered by rotating the arm left or right in much the same fashion as the rudder on a boat.

Although always relatively slow moving, the pallet movers had two speed ranges. There was a normal speed range which could be increased by pressing what was known as the rabbit button. The rabbit button was so called because it had a picture of a rabbit on it.

The normal and preferred method of stopping the pallet mover was by reversing its direction using the twist grip. This provided an effective braking mechanism. In…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Schmidt v. Woolworths (Qld) P/L & Anor 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] QSC 106
Decision Date: 8 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Schmidt, brought an action against Woolworths (Qld) P/L and another party, seeking damages for injuries sustained at Woolworths' distribution centre. Schmidt, an employee of Woolworths, alleged that the first defendant was negligent in the maintenance of equipment, leading to his injuries. The second defendant was the manufacturer of the equipment involved. The plaintiff also contended that the design of the equipment was inherently dangerous, which contributed to the accident.

The court was tasked with determining whether the first defendant breached their duty of care by failing to maintain the equipment properly. Additionally, the court had to assess if the design of the equipment by the second defendant was negligent, and whether this design contributed to the injuries. The court considered expert evidence on equipment maintenance and design, as well as the applicable standards of care in such contexts.

The court found that the first defendant was indeed negligent in not maintaining the equipment to an appropriate standard. However, the court concluded that the design of the equipment by the second defendant was not inherently flawed. Consequently, the court held that the first defendant was liable for damages. The claim against the second defendant was dismissed as the design did not contribute to the injuries.

The court ordered that judgment be given in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant, awarding damages in the amount of $442,402.46. The claim against the second defendant was dismissed, and no further orders were made in relation to the second defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $442,402.46.

2. The claim against the second defendant is dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Schmidt v Woolworths (Qld) P/L & Anor [2009] QSC 106
PARTIES:	DANIEL CHARLES SCHMIDT (plaintiff) v WOOLWORTHS (QUEENSLAND) PTY LTD (first defendant) CROWN EQUIPMENT PTY LTD (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	2102 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25, 26, 27, March 2009 and 24 April 2009
JUDGE:	Dutney J
ORDER:	1. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $442,402.46. 2. The claim against the second defendant is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS- NEGLIGENCE –GENERAL MATTERS- Where the plaintiff was an employee of the first defendant- where the plaintiff was injured at the first defendants distribution centre- where the first defendant found to be liable for negligence of the maintenance mechanic in failing to properly maintain equipment- where the second defendant was the manufacturer of the equipment – where argued the design of the equipment was negligent -where design found not to be flawed Evidence Act 1997 (Qld), s 92 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, s 315 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld) Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
COUNSEL:	J A Griffin QC with him Mr A J Williams for the plaintiff R Morton for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	GB F e-lawyers for the plaintiff DLA Phillips Fox for the defendants