McGahey, E.M.v Australian National University [1988] FCA 214

McGahey, E.M.v Australian National University [1988] FCA 214

While the work involved repetitive bending, stooping, squatting, and lifting, there was no evidence that the system of work was improper or that alternative procedures were feasible. The injury, though foreseeable, was not of such likelihood or magnitude as to require further protection by a prudent employer. The University acted reasonably, and no breach of duty was established.

Parties
Appellant: Else Marie McGahey; Respondent: Australian National University
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Duty of Care, Safe System of Work, Personal Injury, Onus of Proof
Tort Law Employment Law Negligence Employer's Duty of Care Safe System of Work Personal Injury Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Else Marie McGahey

Appellant

Australian National University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Australian National University breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work for its employee, Else Marie McGahey
  2. 2 Whether the spinal damage suffered by Mrs McGahey was a reasonably foreseeable risk
  3. 3 Whether the University should have adopted obviating measures to prevent injury

Ratio Decidendi

While the work involved repetitive bending, stooping, squatting, and lifting, there was no evidence that the system of work was improper or that alternative procedures were feasible. The injury, though foreseeable, was not of such likelihood or magnitude as to require further protection by a prudent employer. The University acted reasonably, and no breach of duty was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal