Tristram-Howard v Morris Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd

The case of Tristram-Howard v Morris Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff suing the defendant, a property developer, for damages arising from a workplace injury sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a back injury while working as a labourer, requiring repetitive bending to clear debris from a runway. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff claimed that the injury was exacerbated by a condition known as central sensitisation, and sought to recover damages not only for the physical injury but also for secondary psychological injury which he contended was a result of childhood trauma.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care that was breached, resulting in the alleged harm. A significant issue was the extent to which the plaintiff's pre-existing condition and childhood trauma contributed to the injury. The court also had to assess the appropriate quantum of damages, taking into account both the physical and psychological components of the plaintiff's injuries. In determining the duty of care, the court considered whether the repetitive bending required for the task was a foreseeable cause of harm. The court further explored the impact of the plaintiff's medical history on his vulnerability to injury and the extent to which the defendant could be held liable for the exacerbation of the plaintiff's condition.

The court held that the defendant did owe the plaintiff a duty of care, which was breached by requiring the plaintiff to engage in activities that were inherently risky. The court found that the repetitive bending to pick up debris was a significant factor in causing the plaintiff's back injury. It was determined that the plaintiff's childhood trauma did not negate the causal link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for both the physical injury and the secondary psychological injury, but it was necessary to apportion the damages to reflect the contribution of the childhood trauma to the plaintiff's condition. The court awarded damages that took into account the plaintiff's medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, but reduced the amount to reflect the pre-existing condition.