Ms Hardy was a 63-year-old hospital cleaner employed at St Vincent’s Hospital in Toowoomba. Her shift ran from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm. Near the end of a shift, tired after a full day of work, she fell while ascending the stairs in a four-storey building.
The stairs themselves were not defective. The issue was different: the hospital had a policy that discouraged cleaners from using the lifts except when moving equipment between floors.
The trial judge found that nothing was wrong with the stairs, but the hospital’s policy of discouraging lift use was unjustified, at least to the extent it applied to this claimant at this time. Had Ms Hardy been permitted to use the lift, she would have done so. The fall would not have happened.
The hospital appealed, arguing on a narrow but significant point of statutory construction: that the employer’s duty under s 9(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 (Qld) only applied where harm to the employee was reasonably foreseeable.
The Court of Appeal rejected the hospital’s argument in terms that have shaped Queensland workplace safety law ever since.
Why this matters in practice: The hospital argued that a fall on these particular stairs was not sufficiently foreseeable to trigger liability. The Court of Appeal said that was the wrong test entirely. The employer’s obligation was absolute, subject to practicability. The hospital had already been found, at trial, to have failed the practicability test when it discouraged lift use without good reason.
“…the word ‘ensure’ in the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 s 9(1) meant ‘make certain’ or ‘make sure’. And the section did not impose, expressly or implicitly, any test of reasonable foreseeability.”
This ruling aligned Queensland with New South Wales authorities, including State Rail Authority of NSW v Dawson and Shannon v Comalco Aluminium Ltd, establishing a consistent national position on the absolute nature of the employer’s duty.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal only to the extent of reducing the judgment by a sum relating to a Fox v Wood calculation, resulting in a final award of $19,379.79.
The compensation here is modest by modern standards. The case’s significance is entirely legal: it is binding Queensland Court of Appeal authority on the scope of the employer duty of care and remains a key authority in workplace injury litigation.
For workers: Employers cannot escape liability simply by arguing that a specific type of accident was not foreseeable. The duty to ensure safety is broad.
For insurers and employers: Workplace policies that restrict employee access to safer alternatives, without genuine justification, expose employers to liability even where the physical environment itself is not defective.
For legal complexity: This case illustrates that workplace injury claims often turn on statutory interpretation, not just facts. Understanding the exact scope of an employer’s duty under Queensland legislation requires specialist knowledge.
Bold callout: A hospital cleaning policy, not a broken staircase, was the source of liability in this case. Many workplace injuries arise from management decisions, not physical defects. Identifying the real cause of an injury is the first job of an experienced personal injury lawyer.
Splatt Lawyers has a team of Brisbane-based qualified legal professionals who advise on work injury claims Queensland-wide. They work with the guidance of a QLD Accredited Personal Injury Specialist, Kerry Splatt.
They also offer free consultation that can explain your eligibility to make a workers compensation claim and your entitlements.
All our WorkCover legal services are funded on a 100% no-win, no-fee basis. There are no hidden or upfront costs or uplift fees. Pay when you win and nothing if you lose.
It’s free to understand your legal rights. Call 1800 700 125
Keeping you up-to-date and informed with relevant facts and news about the
world of compensation law, our law firm and our services
