I. Introduction
The Supreme court of Queensland Judge Byrnes's decision on the lawsuit of DArcy (plaintiff) v the corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane (Spiritus) in 2017 has sparked numerous contentions. This analysis would evaluate the judgment of the court based on the judge's application of legal rules to solve the legal issue.
II. Identification of the legal issue
The plaintiff is Ms. DArcy, who worked as a support worker for Spiritus - the defendant. Her duty was to transport customers to medical appointments. In October 2010, the plaintiff suffered a back injury while extracting the client's wheelie walker from the car boot. Her allegation against Spiritus was that the employer failed to provide safety training on unloading the wheelie walker. The court decided the legal issue was if Spiritus breached duties of care (DOC) to Ms. DArcy, its employee.
III. Analysis of the judge's application of the legal rules to solve the legal issues
In this lawsuit, the judge determined whether the defendant breached its DOC to DArcy by examining if Spiritus acted as a reasonable person and would have done the same in the given situation (Standard of Care).[footnoteRef:1] Firstly, he explained that the cost of taking precautions was easy as the defendant only needed to train Ms. D'Arcy in handling methods discussed by Mr. McDougal and Dr. Grigg.[footnoteRef:2] As a matter of fact, the defendant probably had the safety training for its employees as its guideline expected that workers attend scheduled training on proper handling. Yet the employer failed to take appropriate precautions. Secondly, he claimed that the risk probability was high if there was a lack of safety training.[footnoteRef:3] Spiritus acknowledged the likelihood of the situation well, so its guideline specified that workers must be trained to handle handling tasks safely. Lastly, he argued that the likely seriousness of the injury could be well earnest.[footnoteRef:4] From those above reasons, the court conclu...
