The Facts
Injured worker drives truck with defective seat and develops back pain
A man worked as a truck driver from September 2011 until May 2014.
Periodically, he was assigned a truck with a defective seat. He drove this truck for six weeks in 2013 and again from early 2014 until 19 May 2014.
On that day, he informed his shift supervisor that his back was sore and they agreed that from the following shift he would drive a different truck with a fully functioning seat.
He consulted a GP on 29 May 2014, who noted that he had a ten day history of back spasms and also that the seat on the truck was broken.
On 30 May 2014, the GP certified the truck driver for a period of three and a half weeks off work.
Injured worker switches trucks, but becomes permanently incapacitated after sneezing
After returning to work, the truck driver resumed driving, but in a truck with a fully functioning seat.
However, over the next few months, his back was quite sore after finishing his shifts.
On 22 December 2014 while getting ready for work, he was sitting on a couch putting on his socks, when he sneezed and felt the “most horrendous pain” across his lower back and down his left leg.
He nevertheless went to work that day, but that night could not put any weight on his left leg. He contacted his supervisor who sent him to hospital.
The truck driver was ultimately diagnosed with a spinal disc protrusion, or herniation. He was found to be permanently incapacitated and has not worked since.
He was just 32 years old at the time.
Injured worker sues employer for negligence
The truck driver sued his employer for negligence.
The employer admitted it owed a duty of care and that the seat in the driver’s truck was defective, meaning it had breached that duty.
However, the employer denied causation, saying the defective seat was not the cause of the truck driver’s injury.
Expert commentary on the court's decision
Court finds in favour of injured worker
In Peebles v Work Cover Queensland [2020] QSC 106, the Supreme Court of Queensland found in favour of the injured worker, Daniel Peebles.
The court concluded that Mr Peebles’ back injury was caused by the defective seat, and that therefore his employer, Kurtz Transport Pty Ltd, was liable for damages.
Mr Peebles was awarded a sum of $764,345.12.
Injured worker must prove that “but for” negligence, harm would not have occurred
Section 305D(1)(a) of the Queensland Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”) states that to establish that a breach of duty caused a particular injury, the injured worker must prove that the breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the injury. This is referred to as “factual causation”.
In considering this section of the Act, the court referred to previous findings by the High Court of Australia that the “factual causation” element is a statutory statement of the common law “but for” test of causation. The High Court has said that:
Court rejects employer’s evidence
After considering all the expert witness reports and the evidence, the court concluded on the matter of factual causation that the harm to Mr Peebles would not have occurred without the employer’s negligence.
The court rejected the employer’s argument that the reports of episodes in 2003, 2006 and 2011 supported a finding that Mr Peebles had a pre-existing symptomatic degenerative disease of the lumbar spine.
The court also rejected the employer’s reliance on statistical associations. The court pointed out that “the question of factual causation… is not the general likelihood of driving conditions for a truck driver causing lumbar disc herniation as a matter of statistical association… It is whether, on the balance of probabilities, [Mr Peebles] has proved factual causation.”
The court preferred Mr Peebles’ evidence and concluded that he had indeed proved factual causation.
For example, his spinal surgeon expressed the view that although the forces applied to the spine because of the defective seat might not be sufficient to injure a normal disc, it would be sufficient to injure a disc that was already degenerated and vulnerable. Therefore, it was likely that the disc herniation did occur in May 2014 due to the defective seat.
This case demonstrates the importance of having strong and persuasive expert evidence, since it is this evidence that will determine whether factual causation is proved.
Mr Peebles successfully appeals amount of damages awarded
Mr Peebles appealed this decision to the Queensland Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) in Peebles v WorkCover Queensland [2021] QCA 21.
Mr Peebles argued that the trial judge had erred when he applied a 50 per cent discount to the damages awarded because of the hypothetical possibility that Mr Peebles would have, in any event, suffered from a similar disabling condition at some point in the future.
The appeal court accepted Mr Peebles’ submission that the trial court had erred, allowed the appeal and varied the judgement sum by substituting the sum of $967,052.92.