Surmon v Herald & Weekly Times

The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Surmon, brought a claim against the defendant, Herald & Weekly Times Limited, for damages following an injury to their son, Mr Surmon. The incident occurred in 2011 when Mr Surmon, while working for the defendant, suffered an injury to his left hand. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached its common law duty of care and statutory duties under the Occupational Health and Safety (Manual Handling) Regulations 1999 and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 by failing to implement a safe system of work and failing to take reasonable steps to respond to Mr Surmon’s report of his injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant breached its duty of care or statutory duties in response to Mr Surmon’s reported injury and whether the plaintiffs’ son had an underlying susceptibility to the condition that caused his injury. The court considered whether the defendant's failure to implement a safe system of work and its response to Mr Surmon’s reported injury constituted a breach of its common law duty of care and statutory duties. The court also examined whether Mr Surmon’s underlying susceptibility to the condition that caused his injury impacted the defendant’s duty of care.

The court found that the defendant breached its common law duty of care and statutory duties by failing to implement a safe system of work and failing to take reasonable steps to respond to Mr Surmon’s reported injury. The court held that the defendant’s failure to implement a safe system of work and its response to Mr Surmon’s reported injury was a significant contributing factor to his injury. The court found that Mr Surmon’s underlying susceptibility to the condition that caused his injury did not absolve the defendant of its duty of care. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs for their son’s injury.

The Supreme Court of Victoria awarded damages to the plaintiffs for their son’s injury. The court found that the defendant was liable for the plaintiffs’ son’s injury and ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant breached its common law duty of care and statutory duties by failing to implement a safe system of work and failing to take reasonable steps to respond to Mr Surmon’s reported injury. The court found that the defendant’s failure to implement a safe system of work and its response to Mr Surmon’s reported injury was a significant contributing factor to his injury. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs for their son’s injury.