- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- with readers working within the Basic Industries, Healthcare and Media & Information industries
The District Court dismissed a claim by a worker who sustained a back injury, finding that his failure to disclose a pre-existing condition and undertake suitable work constituted contributory negligence.
In issue
- Whether the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide a stair-climbing trolley and adequate assistance, causing the plaintiff's back injury, and whether the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known at the time he took up employment with the defendant that he was not fit to perform the duties required.
The background
The plaintiff was employed part-time by the defendant, which operated a Harvey Norman store in Dalby. His role included delivering white-goods to customers. While delivering a 137-kilogram refrigerator using a flat free trolley, assisted by a co-worker (who was six-month pregnant at the time), the plaintiff sustained a soft tissue back injury. The defendant provided the flat free trolley with straps, which was load-rated to 350 kilograms, for the delivery of whitegoods. This type of trolley was used across all Harvey Norman stores without reported issues.
The plaintiff had a history of back problems, including an L1 compression fracture and degenerative disc disease, which caused episodic back pain. He had been advised by medical professionals to avoid heavy lifting, bending, twisting, and pushing heavy objects. The plaintiff did not disclose his back condition to the defendant during his job interview, despite being asked about any issues that might affect his ability to perform the required tasks.
The plaintiff (who was self-represented) alleged that the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide a stair-climbing trolley and a capable assistant. The defendant denied that it had breached the duty owned to the plaintiff, and argued that the plaintiff had otherwise contributed to his injury by failing to disclose his pre-existing back condition and undertaking duties he knew he was unfit to perform.
The decision at trial
The Court determined that the defendant did not breach its duty of care. The trolley and assistance provided were reasonable and appropriate for the task. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence that a stair-climbing trolley was necessary, nor did he establish that its use would have prevented the injury.
Turning to the issue of contributory negligence, the Court found that the plaintiff contributed to his injury by failing to disclose his pre-existing back condition and by undertaking duties he was unfit to perform. The Court held that this contributory negligence would have defeated his claim even if the defendant had been found liable.
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on a standard basis from 15 November 2024.
Implications for you
Employers should note the value of asking potential employees whether they have any pre-existing conditions which may impact on their capacity to perform a role, particularly in roles involving physical labour. This decision also highlights the potential for contributory negligence to defeat claims in their entirety.
Goldthorpe v HJS Store Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 209
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
