The Facts
Construction worker stabbed by coworker's knife
A case in Queensland revolved around the question of whether a man was negligent when he accidentally injured his colleague with a knife.
A construction worker was walking along a footpath adjacent to a building site, returning at the end of lunchbreak from his parked car, when he suddenly felt a shooting pain his hand and realised he had been stabbed by his coworker’s knife.
At the time of the incident, the coworker was on his lunchbreak on a grassed area immediately adjacent to the site, as there was no designated eating area. Workers frequently traversed this grassed area.
The coworker had been crouching down, peeling an orange with a long, sharp knife that he used on the site to remove and replace asphalt.
Just as he stood up from his crouched position while still holding the unsheathed knife, the construction worker walked past.
Without any intention to do so, the coworker stabbed the construction worker in his left hand.
The construction worker suffered damage to nerves in two of his fingers, tendons in one of them and arteries in another. He developed ongoing symptoms which impaired his ability to participate in many former activities, and he developed major depression.
Construction worker sues for negligence
The construction worker commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the coworker’s employer (they were employed by different entities).
He claimed damages for personal injury, arguing that the coworker was negligent and his employer was vicariously liable for that negligence.
The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that there had been no negligence.
The construction worker appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal.
On appeal, it was accepted that if the employee was found to be negligent, then the employer was vicariously liable.
Expert commentary on the court's decision
Court of Appeal finds in favour of injured worker
In Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 38, the Queensland Court of Appeal found in favour of the injured worker, Joshua David Boon, awarding him damages of $215,286.11.
Trial judge incorrectly identified risk of injury
The court stressed the importance of correctly identifying the actual risk, since it is only through the correct identification of the risk that one can assess what the reasonable response to the risk would be.
The court noted that risk identification required a precise identification of what it was that exposed Mr Boon to the risk of injury.
The trial judge identified the risk as the peeling of an orange with a sharp knife.
On appeal, the court rejected this, saying that “the mere actions involved in peeling the orange with the knife did not expose [Mr Boon] to any relevant risk”.
Rather, the risk to Mr Boon was the specific risk created by the conduct of his coworker, Mr Summerfeldt, in rising from a crouched position with an unsheathed, long, sharp knife in his hand.
Inescapable conclusion that coworker was negligent
Having identified the appropriate risk, the court made several conclusions which it described as “inescapable”.
First, there was a foreseeable risk that a passer-by such as Mr Boon might have been struck by the blade of the knife.
Second, Mr Summerfeldt ought reasonably to have known of that risk.
Third, that risk was not an insignificant one, particularly given that the location where the incident occurred was frequently traversed by workers.
Fourth, a reasonable person in Mr Summerfeldt’s position would have taken the simple precaution of looking properly or putting the blade away before he rose.
Finally, the above conclusions compelled an ultimate conclusion that Mr Summerfeldt acted negligently and that his negligence caused Mr Boon’s injury.
As a consequence, Mr Summerfeldt’s employer, Summs of Qld Pty Ltd, was vicariously liable.
Practical implications for workplace safety
When assessing risk in negligence claims, the court will seek to identify precisely the conduct that exposed the injured person to risk of injury. For example, while using a knife to eat lunch may be normal, doing so in particular ways or locations can create foreseeable risks.
This case highlights the importance of employers regularly engaging in workplace health and safety risk analysis and ensuring they have clear policies about safe use of tools and equipment, even during breaks.
Employers should also train workers to have an awareness of risks to others, even during informal activities.
If practical, they should also provide a designated break area, if not having one gives rise to a safety risk.
This case also demonstrates the importance of employees remaining vigilant about safety, even during breaks, and taking basic precautions that could prevent injury to others.
Further developments in law
Since this case, the High Court in CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21 has taken a narrower view on vicarious liability.
Ultimately, the question of whether a wrongful act was committed in the course or scope of employment depends on the circumstances of the particular case.