Duma v Mader International Pty Ltd

[2013] VSCA 23

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Breach of statutory duty
3. › Occupational health and safety
4. › Manual handling
5. › Duty to eliminate or reduce risk of musculoskeletal disorder so far as practicable
6. › Duty to undertake risk assessment for hazardous manual handling
7. › Whether breach of statutory duties caused injury
8. › Whether verdict that breach did not cause injury open on the evidence
9. › Occupational Health and Safety (Manual Handling) Regulations 1999 (Vic), regs 13, 14, 15
1. Torts
2. › Breach of statutory duty
3. › Causation
4. › Whether breach of statutory duty gives rise to presumption of causation
5. › Whether plaintiff must separately prove causation where breach established
6. › Relationship between breach and causation in statutory duty claims
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from jury verdict
3. › Standard of appellate review
4. › Whether verdict not reasonably open on the evidence
5. › Whether evidence compelled conclusion favourable to appellant

Quick Take

A plaintiff claiming breach of the Occupational Health and Safety (Manual Handling) Regulations 1999 (Vic) must separately establish that compliance with the regulations would have prevented the injury; proof of breach alone does not establish causation. Where the evidence is contradictory as to the mechanism of injury and proposed alternative systems of work carry their own risks, a jury verdict finding no causation will be upheld. The question whether breach and causation must always be separately established in statutory duty claims remains open.