Wallace v RSL Care Limited - [2017] QDC 161

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wallace v RSL Care Limited [2017] QDC 161

PARTIES:

JILLIAN WALLACE
(plaintiff)

v

RSL CARE LIMITED
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1392/2013

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19, 20, 21 December 2016

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $480,784.00 inclusive of interest

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – WHETHER DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT – where the plaintiff slipped and fell in the course of employment – whether the floor is such that the defendant is liable – EXPERT EVIDENCE – where engineering reports on slip resistance of the floor was provided – DAMAGES – QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – ONGOING SYMPTOMS – where plaintiff suffered ankle injury as a result of the alleged incident – where plaintiff continued to work after injury – where plaintiff immobilised due to back slab – where plaintiff developed deep venous thrombosis and a pulmonary embolus – where ongoing symptoms of hip and lower back pain – whether causally related to incident – whether DVT caused by immobilisation – where plaintiff also obese – where quantum in issue –assessment of damages – measure of damages

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act Qld 2003
Foster v Cameron [2011] QCA 48
Russell v Hancock Farm Company Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 129

COUNSEL:

R Morton and J Sorbello for the plaintiff
S Gray for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Morton & Morton for the plaintiff
BT Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant. She says that on 27 March 2008, in the course of her employment she was showering a patient when she slipped, injuring her left ankle. She alleges the slip was caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Although she had only a few days off work she said in evidence she had significant ongoing symptoms and that these worsened in about February 2010. As a result she consulted her general practitioner on 9 March 2010, and then attended the Maryborough Hospital.

At the hospital she had her left lower leg placed in a back slab. Subsequently, she developed a deep venous thrombosis and a pulmonary embolus in April 2010 and has subsequently suffered a second embolus in 2011. She is at risk to further such events and is required to take Warfarin, or other similar medication, for the rest of her life. She complains of significant symptoms from her condition which preclude at least heavy employment and significantly impact on her enjoyment of life.

In about December 2014 she felt pain in her hip and then a short time later in her lower back. She alleges this was due to symptoms of her embolus and her altered gait arising therefrom and so was causally related to the incident in March 2008.

Even if that is not so, it is necessary to assess the consequences of her hip and lower back symptoms since this could impact on the assessment of the quantum of damages caused…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wallace v RSL Care Limited

Details

AGLC: Wallace v RSL Care Limited [2017] QDC 161
Case: [2017] QDC 161
Decision Date: 21 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wallace v RSL Care Limited, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injury sustained in a workplace accident where she slipped and fell. The defendant, RSL Care Limited, was the employer, and the plaintiff was an employee. The case was brought before the court to determine whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the workplace and whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the injuries she sustained.

The court was tasked with determining if the defendant was negligent in failing to provide a safe working environment. This involved examining the nature of the floor surface and whether it posed an undue risk of slipping, as well as evaluating the expert evidence presented regarding the slip resistance of the floor. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their causal relationship to the fall, including the development of deep venous thrombosis and a pulmonary embolus, which were complications arising from the plaintiff's immobility following the incident.

The court found that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the floor, which was slippery and posed a risk of injury. The evidence provided by the engineering reports supported the plaintiff's claim that the floor was hazardous. Regarding the plaintiff's injuries, the court determined that her ongoing symptoms of hip and lower back pain, as well as the development of deep venous thrombosis and a pulmonary embolus, were causally related to the fall. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account her pre-existing conditions and the extent of her injuries.

The court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $480,784.00, which included interest. The award was based on the totality of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact on her ability to work, as well as the defendant's negligence in maintaining a safe workplace.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $480,784.00 inclusive of interest

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.

CITATION:	Wallace v RSL Care Limited [2017] QDC 161
PARTIES:	JILLIAN WALLACE (plaintiff) v RSL CARE LIMITED (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1392/2013
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19, 20, 21 December 2016
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $480,784.00 inclusive of interest
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE – WHETHER DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT – where the plaintiff slipped and fell in the course of employment – whether the floor is such that the defendant is liable – EXPERT EVIDENCE – where engineering reports on slip resistance of the floor was provided – DAMAGES – QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – ONGOING SYMPTOMS – where plaintiff suffered ankle injury as a result of the alleged incident – where plaintiff continued to work after injury – where plaintiff immobilised due to back slab – where plaintiff developed deep venous thrombosis and a pulmonary embolus – where ongoing symptoms of hip and lower back pain – whether causally related to incident – whether DVT caused by immobilisation – where plaintiff also obese – where quantum in issue –assessment of damages – measure of damages Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act Qld 2003 Foster v Cameron [2011] QCA 48 Russell v Hancock Farm Company Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 129
COUNSEL:	R Morton and J Sorbello for the plaintiff S Gray for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Morton & Morton for the plaintiff BT Lawyers for the defendant