![]() Accident Claims
New VideosFeatured ServiceF vs Australia PostOn the 28 th of March 2001 Ms F sustained a significant lower back injury during the course of her employment as a postal contract worker at the Noosaville Australia Post depot. Despite having surgery on her lower back, she continued to experience daily symptoms of pain and discomfort, her symptoms being made worse with any form of activity. The extent of Ms F’s injury was such that she was no longer capable of working in any capacity. She has had to stop work completely. Ms F’s work as a postal contractor required her to sort mail at her desk. The larger mail items were left for her on the floor beside her desk in large plastic containers called ‘flutes’. Australia Post was supposed to provide Ms F with a chair-high trolley on which the flutes were meant to be stored so as to avoid the need for Ms F to bend down and pick up the flutes. The weight of each flute was to be no heavier than 16kg. No dedicated trolley was provided for Ms F. Even when Australia Post made an attempt to provide Ms F with a trolley, someone else would take it and use it but then fail to return it to Ms F at those times when she needed it. Quite often the flutes would weigh more than 16kg, often weighing more than 20kg! On the 28 th of March 2001 Ms F bent down to pick up one of the flutes, and when she straightened up with the flute (intending to lift it onto her desk), she experienced a dreadful pain in her lower back. She dropped the flute to the floor. The flute was weighed shortly afterwards and it weighed 23kg!!! Ms F approached Julian McNamara, our litigation partner, about the possibility of seeking damages for the significant injury she sustained. Julian advised her that she had a good case and that she should commence a claim in negligence against Australia Post. Ms F followed Julian's recommendation and made a claim. Throughout the course of her case Australia Post continued to deny having done anything to cause Ms F’s injury. They refused to make any offers of settlement to Ms F at any stage of her claim. Ms F was left with no choice other than to commence court proceedings against Australia Post. On Julian's recommendation that she would win her case, Ms F sued Australia Post. Ms F’s trial lasted 3 days in District Court at Brisbane. A total of 8 witnesses were called on Ms F’s behalf to prove her case. No stone was left unturned. Australia Post called 3 witnesses. On the 16 th of August 2005, His Honour Dearden DCJ (a Judge of the Brisbane District Judge) handed down his decision. Ms F won her case against Australia Post. The Judge preferred the evidence of Ms F and her witnesses. The Judge found that Australia Post had failed in its duty to comply with its own Occupational Health and Safety Policy and Procedures to avoid or minimise the risk of injury to Ms F, including:
The Judge assessed Ms F’s damages at $295,000.00. The Judge also ordered that Australia Post pay a contribution of Ms F’s legal costs. Part way through her claim, and well before her trial, Ms F was advised to make a tactical settlement offer to Australia Post in the amount of $185,000.00. Australia Post refused to accept this offer. Australia Post made no offers. When giving his judgment, the Judge was told about Ms F’s earlier offer and of Australia Posts’ refusal to accept it. Because Australia Post refused Ms F’s earlier offer, and because they forced her to a 3 day trial where Ms F’s damages were assessed above the amount of her offer, the Judge ordered Australia Post pay an extra 30% contribution to Ms F’s legal costs than what they would otherwise have been required to pay. Thankyou Ms F for having faith in us, because we believed in you! Flynn v Australian Postal Corporation, Brisbane District Court, 16 August 2005, Dearden DCJ. |