Walker v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd

Case [2020] QSC 329

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 329

PARTIES:

SCOTT GREGORY WALKER
(plaintiff)
v
GREENMOUNTAIN FOOD PROCESSING PTY LTD ACN 123 040 424

(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 398 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

24 – 28 August 2020

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $967,383.39

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY- where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a maintenance manager at the defendant’s meatworks – where the plaintiff investigated a steam leak at the meatworks outside usual operating hours, at dusk – where the plaintiff fell through an alsynite panel on the roof of a shed while investigating the source of the leak – where the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries attributable to the fall – where the defendant did not direct employees to not go onto the roof without a safety harness – whether the defendant is liable in negligence – whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – RE-EMPLOYMENT OF WORKER – where the plaintiff continues to work for the defendant as a maintenance manager but cannot undertake work in his trade due to his injuries – where the plaintiff has some residual capacity for work but is at a significant disadvantage in the open labour market – where there are various contingencies affecting the chance that the plaintiff will lose his current job with the defendant – what measure of damages for future economic loss is appropriate in the circumstances

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305C, s 305D, s 305E, s 306F
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 6, s 9

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48, applied
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301; [1986] HCA 20, cited
Coca Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer (2008) Aust Torts Reports 81-834; [2006] NSWCA 45, cited
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bridge [2018] NSWCA 183, applied
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 214 ALR 349; [2005] HCA 14, cited
Dance v Jemeas Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] QSC 303, cited
Endeavour Foundation v Weaver [2013] QCA 371, cited
Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270, cited
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Kim Yen Tat [2018] QCA 182, cited
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306; [1984] HCA 60, cited
Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 319; [2012] QCA 315, cited
Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc [2020] NSWCA 65, applied
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel…

Continue reading Walker v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Walker v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 329
Case
[2020] QSC 329
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Walker v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr Walker, was employed by the defendant as a maintenance manager at the defendant’s meatworks. The plaintiff suffered multiple injuries when he fell through an alsynite panel on the roof of a shed while investigating a steam leak at dusk. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries in negligence and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the plaintiff's future economic loss due to his inability to work in his trade.

The court considered various factors in determining the defendant's liability, including whether the defendant breached its duty of care by not directing employees to use a safety harness when going onto the roof. The court found that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries, as one or more of the precautions suggested by the plaintiff would likely have prevented the accident. The court also examined the defendant's argument regarding the plaintiff's contributory negligence, but ultimately found that the plaintiff's actions did not absolve the defendant of liability. The court further assessed the measure of damages for the plaintiff's future economic loss, taking into account his residual capacity for work and the significant disadvantage he faced in the open labour market.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for his injuries, and the defendant was liable for the full amount of the damages awarded. The court's judgment considered both the liability and damages aspects, ultimately awarding the plaintiff $967,383.39.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $967,383.39

Background

Background to the litigation

The principal quantum issue is the impairment of his future earning capacity and the risk that loss of his current employment will result in substantial future economic loss because of his acknowledged disadvantage on the open labour market.Additional facts relevant to liability issuesThe plant and the plaintiff’s duties The defendant’s beef processing plant at Coominya is on a 1,000 acre site which includes a farm. The plant has a kill floor, a boning room and areas where meat is processed and stored. This case involves a relatively small part of the processing plant, namely the rendering shed. In this section leftover parts are processed into meat meal and tallow (beef fat). The defendant is a privately owned company. Like other meat processing plants, its activities are subject to government regulation, including Department of Agriculture requirements. The provision of hot water above a certain temperature is essential. Two boilers were situated in a boiler house. However, at the time of the incident only one was in operation. The gas boiler had been decommissioned. As a result, the plant relied upon the oil-powered boiler. It was serviced regularly by a contractor, PBQ Technologies, which was based in Toowoomba. Mr Tony Butler was its lead technician for steam issues and any issues in relation to pipes. The defendant employed boiler operators to monitor the operation of the boiler during shifts. The plant had a normal day shift, and so most activity was concentrated between 5.30 am and 2.30 pm. Tallow from the rendering process was stored in two large tallow tanks close to the rendering shed. A very large hot water tank stood beside them. The hot water was needed to heat the tallow to enable it to be transferred to trucks. Workers in this part of the business would climb stairs to a maintenance platform situated between the tanks and the rendering plant. They would open steam relief valves. The steam pipes and the relief valves in this vicinity are central to the case. In June 2015 the management structure of the business consisted of a Managing Director and his son, the Operations Manager. There was a General Manager (Mr Giddins), a Quality Assurance Manager, a Risk and Compliance Manager, and a Maintenance Manager. Mr Giddins commenced with Greenmountain Food Processing at its inception in early 2007. Initially he was the Quality Assurance Manager and oversaw production. He moved into the General Manager’s role in late 2010. I found Mr Giddins to be an honest and generally reliable witness. There were some relatively minor aspects of his evidence about the operation of the plant which were not so reliable, compared to the evidence of others such as Mr Walker who were more familiar with those aspects. That is not surprising since Mr Giddins has a demanding job managing a very large operation. He impressed me as a thoughtful, intelligent individual. Mr Walker also impressed me as a thoughtful, intelligent and honest witness. Like Mr Giddins, Mr Walker rose through the ranks, based upon his performance. He was only 32 years old at the time of the accident.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I conclude that one or more of the precautions nominated by Mr Walker probably would have prevented him from suffering his injuries.Conclusion on liability I conclude that Mr Walker has proven that the defendant’s negligence caused him to suffer loss and damage.Contributory negligence The defendant did not press a pleaded defence of voluntary assumption of risk. Instead, it relies on aspects of Mr Walker’s conduct as constituting contributory negligence. Reference is made by the defendant to the following provisions of the Act:“305F Standard of care in relation to contributory negligence(1)The principles that are applicable in deciding whether a person has breached a duty also apply in deciding whether the worker who sustained an injury has been guilty of contributory negligence in failing to take precautions against the risk of that injury.(2)For that purpose – (a)the standard of care required of the person who sustained an injury is that of a reasonable person in the position of that person; and(b)the matter is to be decided on the basis of what that person knew or ought reasonably to have known at the time.…305H Contributory negligence(1)A court may make a finding of contributory negligence if the worker relevantly – (a)failed to comply, so far as was practicable, with instructions given by the worker’s employer for the health and safety of the worker or other persons; or(b)failed at the material time to use, so far as was practicable, protective clothing and equipment provided, or provided for, by the worker’s employer, in a way in which the worker had been properly instructed to use them; or(c)failed at the material time to use, so far as was practicable, anything provided that was designed to reduce the worker’s exposure to risk of injury; or(d)inappropriately interfered with or misused something provided that was designed to reduce the worker’s exposure to risk of injury; or(e)was adversely affected by the intentional consumption of a substance that induces impairment; or(f)undertook an activity involving obvious risk or failed, at the material time, so far as was practicable, to take account of obvious risk; or(g)failed, without reasonable excuse, to attend safety training organised by the worker’s employer that was conducted during normal working hours at which the information given would probably have enabled the worker to avoid, or minimise the effects of, the event resulting in the worker’s injury.(2)Subsection (1) does not limit the discretion of a court to make a finding of contributory negligence in any other circumstances.(3)Without limiting subsection (2), subsection (1)(f) does not limit the discretion of a court to make a finding of contributory negligence if the worker – (a)undertook an activity involving risk that was less than obvious; or(b)failed, at the material time, so far as was practicable, to take account of risk that was less than obvious.” The defendant did not rely upon s 305H(1)(f) and the meaning of “obvious risk” in s 305I. If, however, I had been invited to conclude that the relevant risk, in the circumstances, was one that would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of Mr Walker, then this simply would have been a basis to engage s 305H(1)(f).Defendant’s submissions

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.