Fraser v Burswood Resort (Management) Ltd

[2014] WASCA 130

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Employer's duty of care
4. › Night-shift workers
5. › Scope of duty to warn against risks of driving after night-shift
6. › Whether duty to alter shift times
7. › Whether risks of circadian cycle and accumulated sleep debt were obvious
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Onus of proof
5. › Whether plaintiff established she fell asleep while driving
6. › Whether micro-sleep caused vehicle to leave road
7. › Whether breach of duty to warn was causative of accident
8. › Shift of evidentiary onus where breach by omission
9. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5C
1. Appeal
2. › Error of fact
3. › Whether trial judge failed to draw inferences from established facts
4. › Whether conclusions of trial judge ought to be reversed
5. › Natural limitations of appellate review

Quick Take

An employer of night-shift workers owes a duty to warn employees of the risks of driving home in pre-dawn hours, including the effects of the circadian cycle, accumulated sleep debt, and masking of fatigue by workplace stimuli, but does not owe a duty to restructure shift times to avoid pre-dawn driving. However, a plaintiff claiming injury from falling asleep while driving must establish on the balance of probabilities that they actually fell asleep, and the absence of any subjective symptoms of fatigue or sleepiness is a powerful indicator against such a finding. The evidentiary onus principles from Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare do not reverse the legal onus of proving causation, which remains on the plaintiff.