White v Hertz Australia Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

White v Hertz Australia Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 82

PARTIES:

COLIN ARTHUR WHITE

(plaintiff)

v
HERTZ AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 004 407 087

(defendant)

FILE NO:

271 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 – 17 June 2016

Further written submissions provided by the parties on 15 July 2016

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $312,506.45.

2.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the plaintiff was injured by a needle and syringe in the course of his employment – where liability admitted – where the plaintiff alleges ongoing psychiatric condition – whether the injury caused the present psychiatric condition – whether the defendant satisfies the evidential onus of proving effect of other pre-existing conditions on the plaintiff’s present condition

Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)

Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Malec v J C Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638
Phillips v MCG Group Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 83
Purkess v Crittenden  (1965) 114 CLR 164
Schneider v Smith & Anor [2016] QSC 47
Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

COUNSEL:

A Arnold for the plaintiff

S P Gray for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Swanwick Murray Roche Solicitors for the plaintiff

BT Lawyers for the defendant

1. As at 4 March 2013, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a vehicle services attendant and leading hand.  His duties included the detailing of hire cars which had been returned, which involved ensuring that the pockets at the rear of the front seats were clean of rubbish.  On 4 March 2013, while performing this task, the plaintiff reached into one of those seat pockets, and his hand was pierced by a needle and syringe which had been left there as rubbish. 

2. The plaintiff claimed, in paragraph 7(f) of his amended statement of claim, that as a consequence of this needle stick injury, he suffered a severe psychological decompensation, resulting in:

   (a)Post traumatic stress disorder;

   (b)Major depressive disorder;

   (c)Generalised anxiety disorder with superimposed panic attacks and agoraphobia; or alternatively

   (d)An adjustment disorder that is severe and chronic giving rise to a 12.5 per cent whole of person impairment.

3. The defendant admitted that the needle stick injury arose from a breach of its duty of care as employer, but denied that the incident caused injury of the magnitude claimed by the plaintiff.  The defendant’s relevant case, as articulated in paragraph 4(g) of its amended defence was:

   “(g)    The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff suffered illnesses of the nature and extent as pleaded at paragraph 7(f) of the Amended Statement of Claim because the Defendant admits that at the time of the incident as pleaded at paragraph 7 of the Amended…