Previous Articles
An Employer Guilty for Shooting
An employer (Gittani Stone Pty Ltd) has recently been found negligent in a case where a worker (Pavkovic) was shot by a fellow worker (Lee) outside of the workplace. Lee and Pavkovic had been involved in previous incidents. When the workers were again involved in a confrontation Pavkovic wanted to go to the police. The employer discouraged him . No disciplinary action followed.
Some months later another altercation developed between Lee and Pavkovic. Lee left work early and waited for Pavkovic at his car. Lee shot Pavkovic three times causing him serious injury. The Court found that Gittani Stone Pty Ltd had breached its duty of care in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable injury to Pavkovic. Gittani appealed.
The Court of Appeal (NSWCA) considered whether the scope of a duty included the prevention of intentionally caused injuries. The Court found in favour of Pavkovic holding that the employer should have dismissed Lee or given him a strong warning. Further, the employer should not have discouraged Pavkovic from going to the police. The employer had failed to control and settle friction which led to damage and injury.
Keith believes that this case may go to the High Court of Australia on how far an employer’s duty can extend. Had the shooting occurred in the factory, there would be little doubt as to the employer’s duty of care. But this shooting happened outside of the business premises. Where does the Court draw the line? Would an employer be liable if the altercation occurred in a nightclub after tension developed at work? Keith will keep watch on developments.
Elevated Life Expectancy Positive News for Plaintiffs
The High Court in Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd & Anor v Zhang & Anor unanimously agreed with the New South Wales Court of Appeal in finding that for the purpose of assessing damages, projected rather than historical life expectancy tables are to be used when estimating life expectancy.
The High Court held that projected tables published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics take into account the predicted improvement in life expectancy and were more likely to give an accurate estimate of future life expectancy.
The decision will impact on all personal injuries cases in which damages are calculated according to life expectancy. In Australia, where life expectancy is increasing, the direct result of this decision will be to increase damages awarded to plaintiffs.