Mcmurtrie Case

518 Words3 Pages
The Quadriplegic Centre Board of Management vs McMurtrie case. In May 2001, McMurtrie, a nurse, suffered a back injury while turning a patient, R.J, in his bed at a Quadriplegic Centre. After swearing at her, R.J. struck out towards her face while she was bending over him. To avoid the hit, she lurched backwards quickly, and suffered a back injury. R. J. had previously been physically aggressive towards two other staff members, which the employer was aware of. However, McMurtrie was not aware of this prior history. McMurtrie’s case was that she would have dealt R.J differently had she known that he could be aggressive to nurses. The trial judge decided that the Quadriplegic Centre was negligent because it failed to notify McMurtrie…show more content…
In my opinion, the Quadriplegic Centre breached this duty of care by failing to warn McMurtrie of RJ’s violent history, and therefore breached the duty of care owed and was negligent. If I was the judge of this case I would make the Quadriplegic Centre Board of Management pay damages for McMurties pain and suffering, loss of wages, and medical bills. The second case I have studied is The Uniting Church Vs Takacs matter. Thirty-two year old Mr. Takacs, an experienced painter/contractor, was requested by the buildings' maintenance manager at a Village operated by the Uniting Church to quote on painting an old roof. Mr Takacs had no firsthand knowledge of roofing and was seriously injured when he fell nine metres, after tripping on the roof while undertaking the task. He sued the Uniting Church in the New South Wales Supreme Court for negligence, and won initially. The Uniting Church appealed, and the Appeal Court found that the Uniting Church was not negligent. Although the uniting Church owed a duty of care to Mr Takacs to protect him from foreseeable harm, the risks involved in Mr Takacs accessing the roof was minimal and did not warrant elaborate protective
Open Document