CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman
[2023] HCA 21 · Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Mr Schokman worked as a food and beverage supervisor at the Daydream Island Resort in the Whitsundays. His employment required him to live in shared staff accommodation on the island. In November 2016, a co-worker with whom he shared a room came home drunk in the early hours of the morning and, in a semi-conscious state, urinated on Mr Schokman while he was asleep. Mr Schokman inhaled the urine, choked, and suffered a cataplectic attack (he had a pre-existing condition related to narcolepsy). He sued his employer, arguing it should be liable for the co-worker's negligent act. The trial judge dismissed the claim, the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, and the employer then appealed to the High Court. The High Court unanimously allowed the employer's appeal. It held that requiring employees to share accommodation only created the opportunity for the incident, it did not make the co-worker's drunken late-night act part of his employment. Mr Schokman recovered nothing.
Incident & injury
Co-worker, sharing employer-provided accommodation, urinated on plaintiff while he was sleeping; plaintiff inhaled urine, choked, and suffered a cataplectic attack
Read the findings as text
- Employer-provided room. Sharing was required.
- No vicarious liability. Opportunity is not enough.
- $0 recovered. Final, [2023] HCA 21.
- Body regions
- Psychiatric
- Diagnoses
- Cataplectic attack, Exacerbation of pre-existing narcolepsy/cataplexy
- Incident date
- 7 November 2016
- Location
- Daydream Island Resort and Spa, Whitsunday Islands, Queensland
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 2 August 2023
- Claim type
- WCRA Common Law
- Proceeding
- Appeal
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 25
- Occupation
- Food and beverage supervisor Manager
- Liability
- Disputed
- Total damages
- $0
Outcome
High Court unanimously allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the co-worker's drunken act of urinating on the plaintiff was not committed in the course or scope of employment. The mere fact that the employment required shared accommodation provided only the opportunity for the act, not a sufficient connection to attract vicarious liability. The Court of Appeal's orders were set aside and the appeal to that Court was dismissed with costs.
Defendant
1 CCIG Investments Pty Ltd
Employer
- Judgment against this defendant
- $0
Key issues
CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.
Learn more about WorkCover common law claims and psychological injury claims in Queensland.