Stokes v House with No Steps

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.