Munday v St Vincent's Hospital

[2021] VSCA 170

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Causation
3. › Negligent omission
4. › Counterfactual hypothesis
5. › Whether failure to provide training causative of injury
6. › Whether content of hypothetical training could be inferred without expert evidence
7. › Whether common sense sufficient to establish causal link
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Drawing of inferences from established facts
4. › Whether appellate court in as good a position as trial judge to draw inferences
5. › Sufficiency of evidence to support inference

Quick Take

Where an employer negligently fails to provide training in the use of workplace equipment, the plaintiff must adduce evidence of what the training would have entailed and how it would have averted the injury. Resort to common sense is insufficient where the use of the equipment involves unknowns requiring specialist expertise, particularly where the equipment is used in a context involving the safety of both the worker and a third party (such as a patient). The need for training is itself a recognition that safe use is not a matter of common sense, which undermines an argument that the content of training can be inferred by common sense.