Hosking v Pacific Partner P/L

[1999] QCA 484

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Employer's duty
5. › Safe system of work
6. › Foreseeability of risk of injury
7. › Whether inhalation of woodchip dust constituted foreseeable risk of lung injury
8. › Whether risk could be inferred as matter of common sense without expert evidence
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Evidence
4. › Proof of foreseeable risk
5. › Need for expert evidence where risk not within common knowledge
6. › Whether common sense sufficient to establish risk of lung injury from dust inhalation
1. Employment Law
2. › Workplace health and safety
3. › Breach of statutory duty
4. › Employer's obligation to ensure health and safety at work
5. › Defence of impracticability
6. › Whether practicable to guard against unknown risk
7. › Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 (Qld), ss 6(1), 9(1)

Quick Take

Where a plaintiff alleges negligence based on exposure to a workplace substance, expert evidence is required to establish that the substance creates a foreseeable risk of injury if that risk is not within common knowledge; common sense alone is insufficient to establish that woodchip dust inhalation poses a risk of lung damage. Under s 9(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 (Qld), it is not practicable for an employer to guard against a risk of injury that was not known or required to be known by it.