What happened

On 8 March 2017, the plaintiff was breaking asphalt edges that other machinery could not reach during road resurfacing. The task required repeatedly positioning a jackhammer weighing about 46 kilograms and pulling its blade free when it jammed. He had not received specific safe-use training, and the accepted medical evidence showed that he could not return to gainful employment despite spinal surgery.

The issues

The Court considered the work method, breach of the employer's duty and causation of the back injury. The employer alleged fault in declining relief, but did not tender the safe-work statement said to require ten-minute rotation. Quantum also raised whether lost prospects of moving into better-paid work justified a buffer beyond projected labouring earnings.

The court's decision

The Court found that the employer's failure to provide suitable equipment, work methods, training and supervision caused the injury. It rejected contributory negligence: the plaintiff was carrying out the assigned system without fatigue, and the early offers to swap were not supervisory directions. Damages were confined to economic loss under the work-injury scheme, with compensation already paid credited against the assessment.

Understanding the figures

The historical gross assessment was AUD 1,130,161.00. After the agreed workers compensation offset of AUD 223,499.76, judgment was entered for AUD 906,661.24, with costs under the applicable statutory scheme addressed separately in the reasons. Future economic loss of AUD 720,290.00 already included the AUD 75,000.00 career-progression buffer, which should not be added again.

What this case shows

An informal ability to swap duties did not establish adequate control of this hazardous manual task. The employer needed to assess the repeated lifting and extraction loads and provide safer equipment or methods with effective supervision. The Court also valued evidenced prospects of career improvement through a buffer where a precise earnings calculation was not possible.

Why another case may differ

This was an employer work-injury damages claim under the 1987 and 1998 compensation legislation, with assessment restricted to economic damages. The rejection of contributory negligence turned on the evidence about this system, instructions and training. The career-progression buffer depended on evidence of the plaintiff's qualifications and pre-injury plans, rather than an automatic addition to every earnings award.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →