Stokes v House with No Steps

Case [2016] QSC 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] QSC 79

PARTIES:

KELLY MAI STOKES
(plaintiff)

v

HOUSE WITH NO STEPS

ACN 001 813 403
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS3037/13

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28-31 July 2015

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.   the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2.   the parties may make submissions as to costs in writing limited to five pages on or before 19 May 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – GENERALLY – where the defendant was a non-profit organisation providing services funded by the Queensland Government – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to care for a severely disabled client at a residential care house – where the client exhibited behaviours including grabbing and biting – where the client attacked the plaintiff and a struggle ensued  – where there was only one carer at the house at a time – where the defendant did not have the means to provide a second carer – whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have taken the precaution of employing a second carer to manage NM in an emergency – whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have taken the precaution of providing a duress alarm to activate in an emergency – whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have taken the precaution of providing a swipe access card to make the office quickly accessible

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff must prove the breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the injury – whether the plaintiff would have been assisted in time by an emergency response to a duress alarm – whether the plaintiff would have responded differently in the struggle and instead would have attempted to run from the client, whether or not faster access to the office was available with a swipe access card

Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld) ss 15-17, 19, 20, 23, 28
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 305B–305E, 306F(2), 306H(2), 306N-306P, 306L(2)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld) ss 112D, schs 8-11

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48, cited
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301; [1986] HCA 20, cited
Bull v Capital Territory Health Commission (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Sheppard J, 9 July 1982), cited
Cross v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2013] QSC 215, cited
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839; [2005] HCA 14, cited
Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18, applied
Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver (2001) 179 ALR 321; [2001] HCA 24, cited
Malec v J C Hutton Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Continue reading Stokes v House with No Steps

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stokes v House with No Steps [2016] QSC 79
Case
[2016] QSC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stokes v House with No Steps was a case heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The plaintiff, Stokes, had been employed by the defendant to care for a severely disabled client at a residential care house. The client had exhibited behaviours including grabbing and biting, and during an incident, the client attacked Stokes, leading to a struggle. Stokes claimed that the defendant, a non-profit organisation funded by the Queensland Government, was negligent in not providing adequate safety measures such as a second carer, a duress alarm, or a swipe access card for quicker office access.

The court needed to decide whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have taken precautions like employing a second carer, providing a duress alarm, or a swipe access card. It was also necessary to determine if the lack of these measures breached the duty of care owed to Stokes and if such a breach was a necessary condition for the injury Stokes suffered. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether Stokes would have responded differently to the attack if a duress alarm had been present or if quicker access to the office had been possible.

The court found that the defendant had not breached its duty of care. It was concluded that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not have employed a second carer due to financial constraints, nor would they have provided a duress alarm or a swipe access card under the circumstances. The court held that the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant’s failure to provide these safety measures was a necessary condition of the injury. Additionally, the court found that even if the measures had been in place, it was unlikely that Stokes would have responded differently during the attack.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and ordered that the parties may make written submissions on costs, limited to five pages, by 19 May 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2. the parties may make submissions as to costs in writing limited to five pages on or before 19 May 2016.

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.