Taylor v Invitro Technologies Pty Ltd

[2010] QSC 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Taylor v Invitro Technologies Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 282

PARTIES:

BENITA CAROL TAYLOR
(Plaintiff)

v

INVITRO TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD

(ABN 27 102 379 895)
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

7039 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14-15 July 2010

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $419,461.36.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – IN GENERAL – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant and worked at a work station comprised of a partitioned area containing a desk and a chair – where the defendant instructed all employees, including the plaintiff, to place a plastic mat under their chair – where the plaintiff complained to the office manager that the mat was slippery and dangerous but was told to leave the mat at her work station – where the plaintiff fell at her work station, landing on her tail bone and fracturing her sacrum – where the plaintiff claims that when she stood up at her work station the chair slid backwards so that when she went to sit down again the chair was no longer behind her and she fell to the floor – whether the defendant has breached its duty of care.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation  and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 (Qld) s 197

Jones v Mollking Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 134

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC with L Barnes for the plaintiff

R Morton for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Romans & Romans Lawyers for the plaintiff

MacDonnells Law for the defendant

1. The plaintiff alleges she sustained personal injuries when she fell whilst working at her place of employment with the defendant.  She claims these personal injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence and/or breach of contract of employment and/or breach of statutory duty.  The defendant denies liability and asserts that any action for breach of statutory duty does not exist by reason of retrospective amendments to the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 (Qld).

1. The plaintiff commenced employment with the defendant on 13 June 2006.  Her workplace was located at premises at 5 Grant Street, Cleveland.  These premises were divided into a number of work stations, one of which was occupied by the plaintiff.  Her work station comprised of a partitioned area containing a desk and chair.  To the left were overhead shelves and to the right, on the partitioned wall, was located a map.  When the plaintiff first commenced work, the chair was positioned on the carpeted floor.  However, some weeks after commencing employment, plastic mats were provided and placed under the chair in each work station.  In the case of the plaintiff’s work station, the mat remained in that position thereafter and was in place on the day of the incident.

1. The plaintiff gave evidence that when the mats arrived the…