Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd; Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd v Bilson

[2024] QCA 171 · Bowskill CJ

In plain language

Mr Bilson worked as a vacuum truck operator for Vatsonic, which hired the truck and operator out to Townsville City Council. While he was unhooking a heavy hose from his truck, stored energy in the hose caused it to fling around and strike him in the left eye, leaving him with near-total loss of vision in that eye. He sued his employer Vatsonic (under workers' compensation law) and the Council (under ordinary negligence law) for failing to provide a safe system of work. The trial judge found both at fault but, due to a contractual indemnity, only entered judgment against Vatsonic.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held judgment should be entered against both defendants. The Court also found a workers' compensation provision voided the indemnity, and assessed his common-law damages against the Council at $590,801.57 (approximately $230,000 higher than what was awarded in the original trial).

Incident & injury

Whilst uncoupling a vacuum hose from a hydro vac truck's outlet valve, the hose flung out of the worker's hand due to release of stored torsional energy and struck him on the bridge of the nose and left eye.

Diagnoses
Rupture of left eye, Traumatic loss of iris, Traumatic loss of lens, Vitreous haemorrhage, 95-99% loss of visual acuity left eye, Psychological consequences
Incident date
28 August 2017
Location
Burdell, Townsville, Queensland

Quick facts

Date of judgment
13 September 2024
Proceeding
Appeal
Plaintiff outcome
Successful
Plaintiff age at injury
40
Occupation
Vacuum truck operator (hydro vac truck) Machinery Operator / Driver
Liability
Disputed
Whole Person Impairment
23%
Total damages
$590,802

Outcome

Mr Bilson's appeal was allowed; judgment was entered against both Vatsonic (employer, governed by WCRA) for $359,689.84 and the Council (occupier, governed by common law) for $590,801.57, with apportionment of 70%/30%. Vatsonic and WorkCover's appeal succeeded only on the s 236B point, which voided the contractual indemnity in favour of the Council. Mr Bilson's actual recovery is the larger common-law judgment against the Council of $590,801.57.

Defendants (2)

1 Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd

Labour-hire employer

Apportionment
70%
Judgment against this defendant
$359,690
WorkCover refund
$179,757
Heads of damage
General damages $63,950
Past economic loss $76,208
Interest on past EL $22,300
Past superannuation $7,621
Future loss of economic capacity $250,000
Future superannuation $29,425
Past care (Griffiths v Kerkemeyer) $13,365
Future care $5,000
Interest on past special damages $873
Future special damages $19,317
Fox v Wood $3,910
Subtotal before refunds $539,447

2 Townsville City Council

Host employer / Occupier

Apportionment
30%
Judgment against this defendant
$590,802
Heads of damage
General damages $80,000
Past economic loss $76,208
Interest on past EL $22,300
Past superannuation $7,621
Future loss of economic capacity $250,000
Future superannuation $29,425
Past care (Griffiths v Kerkemeyer) $13,365
Future care $5,000
Past special damages (plaintiff) $82,783
Interest on past special damages $873
Future special damages $19,317
Fox v Wood $3,910

Contribution orders

  • Townsville City Council ordered to contribute to Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — Vatsonic entitled to recover 30% of damages assessed against it from the Council)
  • Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd ordered to contribute to Townsville City Council (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — Council entitled to recover 70% of damages assessed against it from Vatsonic)

Key issues

📑 Cite this case (AGLC4)

Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd; Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd v Bilson [2024] QCA 171

When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.

← Back to the case archive