Schokman v CCIG Investments Pty Ltd
[2021] QSC 120 · Crow J
Aaron Schokman worked as a food and beverage supervisor at Daydream Island Resort and, as a condition of his job, had to share a room with another employee. He had a well-controlled sleep condition (narcolepsy and cataplexy). In the early hours of one morning his intoxicated roommate urinated on his face while he slept, which aggravated his sleep condition and caused a psychiatric injury. Schokman sued his employer, arguing it should have limited alcohol, had proper conduct policies, and screened or separated the roommates. The judge accepted the employer owed a duty of care and that the general risk was foreseeable, but found Schokman had not proven the employer breached its duty, because he could not show what specific precautions a reasonable employer would have taken. The judge also found the incident was a drunken mistake not caused by any failing of the employer, and that the employer was not legally responsible for the co-worker's act. The claim was dismissed. The court noted that, had the employer been liable, it would have awarded about $431,000.
Incident & injury
While the plaintiff was asleep in shared employee accommodation, a co-worker (Hewett), in a state of intoxication, urinated on the plaintiff's face, causing an aggravation of pre-existing narcolepsy/cataplexy and a psychiatric injury.
- Body regions
- Psychiatric, Neurological (sleep disorder)
- Diagnoses
- Aggravation of pre-existing narcolepsy and cataplexy, Post-traumatic stress disorder (in remission), Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood
- Incident date
- 7 November 2016
- Location
- Daydream Island Resort, Queensland
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 27 May 2021
- Claim type
- WCRA Common Law
- Proceeding
- Trial
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- ~25 (inferred)
- Occupation
- Food and beverage supervisor at Daydream Island Resort Manager
- Liability
- Disputed
- ISV assessed
- 17 uplift applied · Item 8 (minor brain injury) analogue for sleep disorder / WCRR Schedule 9
- Total damages
- $0
Outcome
The court found the employer owed a duty of care and that the risk of confrontation between roommates was foreseeable and not insignificant, but held the plaintiff failed to prove breach (the precautions were too vaguely identified) and failed on both factual and scope-of-liability causation. The employer was also not vicariously liable, as the co-worker's drunken act had no sufficient connection to the employment. Judgment was entered for the defendant, though the court assessed quantum at $431,738.88 (after WorkCover refund) had liability been established.
Defendant
1 CCIG Investments Pty Ltd
Employer
- Judgment against this defendant
- $0
- WorkCover refund
- $215,521
- Medicare refund
- $3,155
Heads of damage
| General damages | $29,590 |
|---|---|
| Past economic loss | $104,438 |
| Past superannuation | $9,922 |
| Future loss of economic capacity | $400,000 |
| Future superannuation | $45,200 |
| Past special damages (plaintiff) | $5,566 |
| Past special damages (WorkCover) | $26,079 |
| Future special damages | $7,500 |
| Fox v Wood | $18,965 |
| Subtotal before refunds | $647,260 |
Key issues
Schokman v CCIG Investments Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 120
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.