What happened

In 2015, the plaintiff fell when a plank step supported by timber blocks moved and came apart as she entered accommodation provided at the grazing property. The occupier admitted liability but sought contribution or indemnity from her separate employer for failing to inspect the step more closely. She could not sustain a return to work, and the occupier also challenged earnings and care components of her damages.

The issues

The court considered whether reasonable care required the employer to physically test the step, beyond visually inspecting premises controlled by someone else, and whether testing would have revealed the defect. The damages issues concerned the plaintiff's work prospects despite low historical earnings and the treatment of pre-existing conditions in earnings and care assessments.

The court's decision

A visual inspection was sufficient in the circumstances, including uneventful previous visits and the step's apparently normal condition. Because the plaintiff had herself used it several times without difficulty, it was speculative to say physical testing would have exposed the defect. Evidence that she had found suitable cooking work, together with the evidence of her care needs, supported the damages assessment; the appeal was dismissed with the occupier to pay the respondents' costs.

Understanding the figures

Dismissal of the appeal left the historical trial damages total of AUD 992,866.34 intact. Included were AUD 99,626.80 for future economic loss after a 30% contingency discount and AUD 250,531 for future commercial care after a 15% discount. This was not a fresh additional award on appeal or a finding of net cash received; appeal costs were separate.

What this case shows

The employer's inspection duty depends on control of the premises and what was known about the risk. Low past earnings do not necessarily measure a worker's capacity after finding a suitable occupation. The appeal also shows why a different preferred contingency percentage, without demonstrated error, does not justify replacing the trial judge's assessment.

Why another case may differ

The employer contribution issue engaged general-law duties and the Workers Compensation Act 1987 framework, while damages against the occupier were assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2002. The decision does not establish that visual inspection is enough at every outside workplace. The attempted challenge to past care was not included in the grounds of appeal, and the work, care and contingency findings were specific to the evidence.

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? →