SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd v Larkin [2013] QCA 281
PARTIES:
SUNCORP STAFF PTY LTD
(appellant)
v
IAN DAVID LARKIN
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 2658 of 2013
DC No 9 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:
27 September 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
16 September 2013
JUDGES:
Holmes and Muir JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The orders made on 22 February 2013 be set aside.
3. There be judgment for the appellant in the proceedings.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings including the costs of the appeal on the standard basis from 10 December 2010.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY – PARTICULAR CASES – AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the respondent was employed in the appellant’s call centre – where the respondent struck his right knee on the metal handle of a cupboard under a workbench on which the telephone he was using rested – where the primary judge accepted evidence that, over the years, a “steady stream” of employees had used the workbench without injury – where there was an identical workbench on a higher floor and the same handles were used throughout the office – where the primary judge accepted that the risk of injury was “obvious” despite the absence of prior incidents – where the primary judge held that there was “more than a slight chance” that the respondent could suffer injury by coming into contact with the handle and that the appellant breached its duty of care by failing to replace the handles – where the appellant submits that the primary judge erred in focusing on the expense, difficulty and inconvenience of taking alleviating action and in failing to consider the magnitude of the risk or the degree of probability of its occurrence – where the appellant submits that the primary judge erred in concluding that there was “more than a slight chance” that the respondent could be injured by contact with the handle – whether a reasonable employer in the position of the appellant would have foreseen that the failure to remove the handles would have involved a risk that employees could sustain injury – whether the appellant breached its duty of care in failing to replace the handles
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839; [2005] HCA 14, considered
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317; [2003] HCA 51, cited
Larkin v Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 28, related
Seage v State of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 328, considered
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422; [2005] HCA 62, considered
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR…
Continue reading Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd v Larkin
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd v Larkin [2013] QCA 281
- Case
- [2013] QCA 281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the employer breached its duty of care by not replacing the metal handles, and whether a reasonable employer would have foreseen the risk of injury from these handles. The employer contended that the primary judge erred in focusing on the cost and inconvenience of replacing the handles, rather than the magnitude of the risk and the likelihood of injury. The employer also argued that the risk of injury was not significant enough to warrant action, as no prior incidents had occurred despite the handles being in use for years. The court had to assess whether the primary judge's conclusions on the foreseeability of the risk and the degree of probability of injury were correct.
In dismissing the appeal, the court held that the primary judge was correct in finding that the employer breached its duty of care by not replacing the handles. The court found that the employer should have foreseen the risk of injury, given the obvious nature of the hazard and the potential for injury despite no prior incidents. The court also determined that the primary judge did not err in considering the cost and inconvenience of replacing the handles as factors in the employer's decision-making process, but these factors did not outweigh the need to eliminate the obvious hazard. The court therefore upheld the primary judge's decision and awarded costs to the employer.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders made on 22 February 2013 were set aside. Judgment was entered for the appellant, Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal, on the standard basis from 10 December 2010.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The orders made on 22 February 2013 be set aside.
3. There be judgment for the appellant in the proceedings.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings including the costs of the appeal on the standard basis from 10 December 2010.
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.