Court awards worker more than 1.3 million dollars

Nov 16, 2022 | Publication | 0 comments

The plaintiff, Mr Warn, suffered a back injury whilst working for the defendant.

Mr Warn was working on a machine which bent steel reinforcing rods (or bars) into various shapes and sizes. Mr Warn was directed not to use the automated process (short bar method) but to use a procedure which required a combination of bending, lifting and twisting.

At first instance, the Court entered a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for $1,383,300.12.

The defendant appealed in respect of liability.

The trial judge found that, on the expert evidence, the work engaged in could have been done safely but the actual method being used was not safe and the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable.

It involved a combination of bending, lifting and twisting, leading to a substantial back injury. In all the circumstances, the findings of breach of duty of care was supported by the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.

The case of Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn [2019] WASCA 15 can be read in full here.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

The Rise of Generative AI in Law and the Need for Caution

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), a subset of artificial intelligence focused on creating new content, has gained significant traction in various industries, including law. Capable of producing text, images, and audio, platforms like ChatGPT are among the...

Australia Introduces Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy

The Australian legal landscape is about to undergo a significant transformation with the introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This change comes with the passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 by the Commonwealth...

Building Disputes – Which Court or Tribunal Deals with Them?

In New South Wales, there are different forums to have building disputes and claims addressed. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal handles building disputes particularly residential building work claims.  There are numerous claims prosecuted and defended in...

When should a business take legal action on an overdue account?

Generally speaking, an overdue account should be acted on promptly.  The longer it is left, the greater the likelihood the account will need to be written off. Unless the debtor has a satisfactory reason for delaying payment, the account should be followed...

Court Rules Against Kmart in Personal Injury Appeal

In a recent case, Kmart has been held liable for injuries sustained by a customer in its Woy Woy store, after a mountain bike in a heavy, oversized box fell from another customer's shopping trolley, injuring Ms Rita Marmara. The New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld...

Can a Shareholder claim against a Company?

A shareholder can claim against a company under some circumstances. Shareholders have specific rights and interests in a company, and there are scenarios where they might have grounds to make a claim. Some common situations include: Breach of Shareholder Agreement: If...

Court of Appeal Clarifies GP’s Duty of Care in Varipatis v Almario

In a landmark decision, the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of a general practitioner (GP) who was previously found negligent for not referring a morbidly obese patient for bariatric surgery. The case, Varipatis v Almario [2013] NSWCA 76, provides...