Elsa, 26 years of age, was employed as a rigger for Frozen Pty Ltd. While she operated one crane at work, she was struck
Posted: Fri May 20, 2022 6:04 am
Elsa, 26 years of age, was employed as a rigger for Frozen Pty
Ltd. While she operated one crane at work, she was struck in the
face by a heavy steel chain which slipped out from a machine
operated by another crane worker. The blow to her face rendered her
unconscious for several minutes. The blow also broke bones in her
nose and cheeks. She spent 12 days in hospital, including having
cranial surgery to insert plates. From the surgery, she has
scarring over her head mostly behind her hairline. She has been
left virtually blind in her left eye. She has lost sensation on the
left side of her forehead and cheek. She lost her sense of smell
and, because of that, most of her sense of taste. She has some
degree of memory impairment and some mood effects. After four
months, she had recovered sufficiently to return to her work as a
rigger, on light duties. A month later, she was back to working
full hours and after another month, she was doing her full
pre-injury duties. Nevertheless, she no longer felt comfortable
performing those duties and, in any event, was offered new
employment in a field she had been pursuing for some years, working
as a construction supervisor in a large building company. She took
up that employment in November 2015, earning a higher salary than
she earned in her previous employment as a rigger. However, Elsa
found that although she really enjoyed the new job, her health
problems from the original accident at Frozen Pty Ltd worsened
while at her new job which meant that she had to leave. Elsa now
wants to sue Frozen Pty Ltd in negligence for injuries sustained
from her original workplace injuries. Task: Advise whether Elsa may
be successful in a claim for compensation through the Common Law of
Negligence. Discuss the relevance of vicarious liability and any
defences which may be raised by Frozen Pty Ltd as part of your
response. Use case references to support your answer
Ltd. While she operated one crane at work, she was struck in the
face by a heavy steel chain which slipped out from a machine
operated by another crane worker. The blow to her face rendered her
unconscious for several minutes. The blow also broke bones in her
nose and cheeks. She spent 12 days in hospital, including having
cranial surgery to insert plates. From the surgery, she has
scarring over her head mostly behind her hairline. She has been
left virtually blind in her left eye. She has lost sensation on the
left side of her forehead and cheek. She lost her sense of smell
and, because of that, most of her sense of taste. She has some
degree of memory impairment and some mood effects. After four
months, she had recovered sufficiently to return to her work as a
rigger, on light duties. A month later, she was back to working
full hours and after another month, she was doing her full
pre-injury duties. Nevertheless, she no longer felt comfortable
performing those duties and, in any event, was offered new
employment in a field she had been pursuing for some years, working
as a construction supervisor in a large building company. She took
up that employment in November 2015, earning a higher salary than
she earned in her previous employment as a rigger. However, Elsa
found that although she really enjoyed the new job, her health
problems from the original accident at Frozen Pty Ltd worsened
while at her new job which meant that she had to leave. Elsa now
wants to sue Frozen Pty Ltd in negligence for injuries sustained
from her original workplace injuries. Task: Advise whether Elsa may
be successful in a claim for compensation through the Common Law of
Negligence. Discuss the relevance of vicarious liability and any
defences which may be raised by Frozen Pty Ltd as part of your
response. Use case references to support your answer