Case Note: Clayton v Jetcrete Oz Pty Ltd [2017] QDC3

Facts of the case

An employer owes a duty of care to its employees to take reasonable care to avoid exposing them to unnecessary risks of injury.

Ms Wendy Clayton was employed as a concrete truck driver and operator for a concreting contractor, Jetcrete Oz Pty Ltd (“Jetcrete”).

According to Ms Clayton, the incident happened during one of her shifts and she alleges to have suffered lower back pain as a result. As explained by Ms Clayton, the concrete truck ran out of water and the concrete became hard in consistency, meaning that it had to be manually pushed out from the chute of the truck. Ms Clayton alleges that she was instructed by her co-worker to manage the concrete flow, and she did so with maximum strength using her hands and a scraper.

Ms Clayton alleged that the injury was caused by the breach of duty by Jetcrete as her employer and/or its negligence in failing to provide and maintain a safe system of work.

What was the legal issue?

The issue was whether Ms Clayton’s injury was caused by Jetcrete’s breach of duty or negligence and if so if she was injured in the alleged way.

What does the law say?

As previously mentioned, an employer owes a duty of care to its employees to take reasonable care to avoid exposing them to unnecessary risks of injury.

In order to be liable under Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) for an employee’s injury sustained in the course of his or her employment, the employer’s breach of duty must have caused the injury.

What was the judgement?

The evidence given at trial suggested that:

  • Ms Clayton was to accompany her co-worker as a mere observer with no defined role. He did not instruct her to perform any role at any time on that occasion;
  • She did not manually push concrete out at any time during the concrete pour; and
  • Ms Clayton had a long history of lower back pain. She did not properly inform Jetcrete of this at any stage in the course of her employment.

The judge found that Ms Clayton could not prove that her injury occurred as a result of her manually pushing concrete out of the chute in the first instance. The judge also found that her injury could not be said to have been caused by any breach of duty on the part of Jetcrete Therefore, the case was dismissed due to the lack of evidence linking her injury with the alleged breach.

Lessons Learned

It is important for both employers and employees to note from this case that:

  • Employers should seek to ensure a safe system of work to avoid any foreseeable risk of injury to their employees;
  • An employee ought to inform his or her supervisor of any non-work related injury that may become aggravated during the course of the shift; and
  • An employee wishing to bring a claim against his or her employer for a work-related injury needs to prove that the injury occurred as a result of a breach of duty of care by his/her employer.

Want to find out more?

Book an initial free no obligation consultation with one of our Personal Injury Lawyers, please contact one of our Business Development Officers today by email or Phone 07 32520011.

Written by Eduardo Cruz and Brooke Nickerson 

Read more articles here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *