Leeder v WA

[2008] WASCA 192

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Personal injury
3. › Employer's duty of care
4. › Prison officer assaulted by prisoner
5. › Failure to warn of prisoner's previous aggressive conduct
6. › Whether breach of duty of care
7. › Whether warning would have prevented assault
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from findings of fact
3. › Standard of appellate review
4. › Whether findings open on the evidence
5. › Whether trial judge failed to draw inferences that should have been drawn
6. › Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Reasons for decision
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Obligation to explain why one body of evidence preferred over another
5. › Obligation to assess effect of inaccuracies in medical history on expert opinion
1. Negligence
2. › Causation
3. › Prima facie causal connection where injury within area of foreseeable risk
4. › Evidential burden on defendant to show breach had no effect
5. › Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408

Quick Take

An employer's duty of care to a prison officer requires that the officer be informed of a prisoner's recent aggressive conduct before being directed to open the prisoner's cell. A trial judge's finding that a briefing 'would have' occurred is insufficient to establish that it did occur, particularly where the officers concerned deny receiving any briefing. Where there are discrepancies in a medical history relied upon by expert witnesses, the trial judge must assess the effect of those discrepancies on the expert's opinion rather than simply dismissing the evidence wholesale.