QLD WC: Meatworker fails to satisfy Queensland District Court that employer was negligent - Manca v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 139

The Queensland District Court has recently found against a meatworker who alleged that he had sustained injuries as a result of the negligence of his employer.

Background

The Plaintiff, Eduardo Manca, was employed by the Defendant, Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd at its meatworks in Beenleigh, first commencing employment in June 2019.

It was accepted by the parties that on 11 February 2020, the Plaintiff slipped on steps on the blooding floor of its meatworks and fell backwards, sustaining a broken rib and soft tissue injury of his side.

The Plaintiff alleged that the slip and fall occurred as a result of negligence by the Defendant by virtue of: –

  1. Failing to maintain a safe workplace;
  2. Failing to adequately clean the blooding floor; and
  3. Failing to provide cleaning facilities for his work boots, resulting in the floor or boots being slippery, precipitating the fall.

The Defendant denied that it was negligent or breached its duty of care to the Plaintiff. Alternatively, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff contributed to the circumstances of the incident, as he failed to hold an installed handrail when descending the stairs as he had been trained and instructed to use. Further, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff had no incapacity, nor that he had suffered any loss of income, as a result of the subject incident.

Principles

The court considered the common law principles, as modified by the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’), for determining whether an act or omission was negligent and whether that negligence was causative of loss.

Pursuant to s 305B of the Act, an employer does not breach a duty to take precautions against a risk of injury unless the risk was foreseeable, it was not insignificant, and a reasonable person in the position of the employer would have taken then precautions. This section also details factors that the court may consider when deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of injury, namely the probability of injury and the likely seriousness of that injury, along with burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of injury.

Decision

The Court found against the Plaintiff, concluding that the Defendant was not negligent.

The Court opined that there was not a foreseeable risk of workers slipping on the steps on the blooding floor. In support of this conclusion, the Court noted that there had been no reported slip incidents on the stairs prior to the subject incident, and that no expert evidence was adduced to confirm that the steps were in fact slippery.

Additionally, the Court considered the steps taken by the Defendant to mitigate the risk of slipping at the accident site to have been reasonable and sufficient to mitigate any risk. The Court noted that the steps had rough non-slip flooring installed on them and that workers had been instructed to use a handrail when descending the stairs.

In the alternative, the Court opined that should it be concluded that the risk was foreseeable, it was not a significant risk, given the aforementioned precautions put in place by the Defendant.

As to contributory negligence, the Court opined that the Plaintiff was negligent on account of his failure to utilise the available handrail when descending the stairs, and that this was a considerable factor that led to his fall and his injuries. The Court considered the quantum of this contribution to fairly be 50%, but deferred to the Defendant’s submissions that a reduction in damages of 30% would be appropriate.

Having concluded that the Defendant was not negligent, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.