Smith v Body Corporate for Professional Suites Community Title Scheme 14487

The applicant, Smith, fell through a glass panel adjoining the entrance to an office building, causing severe lacerations. The respondent, Body Corporate for Professional Suites Community Title Scheme 14487, controlled the common areas, including the foyer entrance and building façade. Smith brought an action for damages in negligence against the respondent, alleging that the respondent breached its duty of care by failing to organise a glass audit and replace the glass in the side panels with safety glass, as required by later Australian Standards. Smith also contended that the respondent breached its statutory duty under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld) to ensure safe access to and from the workspace. The trial judge found that the respondent did not breach its statutory duty, and Smith’s contributory negligence was one third. Smith appealed on the basis that the trial judge erred in the assessment of damages and the respondent’s duties under the Act.

The court considered whether the respondent breached its common law and statutory duties, and whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of damages. Regarding the common law duty, the court found that the respondent did not owe Smith a duty of care in respect of the glass panel. The court found that the respondent could not reasonably foresee that Smith would be injured by the glass panel, as the glass complied with Australian Standards at the time of construction. The court also found that the respondent was not negligent in failing to organise a glass audit, as the architect’s plans did not alert the respondent to the relevant Australian Standards. Regarding the statutory duty, the court found that the respondent did not breach its duty under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), as the Act did not require the respondent to organise a glass audit. The court found that the respondent took reasonable steps to manage the risk of injury from the glass panel. Regarding damages, the court found that the trial judge did not err in the assessment of damages for past economic loss, as Smith did not adduce evidence of the “essential facts” of such a claim. The court found that the trial judge’s assessment of damages for loss of future earning capacity was not manifestly inadequate, as Smith’s psychological complications affected her future earning capacity.

The appeal was dismissed, and Smith was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application and appeal to be assessed. The court found that the respondent did not breach its common law and statutory duties, and that the trial judge did not err in the assessment of damages. The court found that Smith’s contributory negligence was one third, and that the trial judge’s assessment of damages for loss of future earning capacity was not manifestly inadequate. The court found that the applicant’s blood alcohol concentration did have a significant effect on her, and that she bears some responsibility for her injuries. The court held that the trial judge did not err in reducing damages for contributory negligence by one third. The court held that the trial judge’s assessment of damages for past economic loss was reasonable, as Smith did not adduce evidence of the “essential facts” of such a claim.