Schokman v CCIG Investments Pty Ltd [2022] QCA 38

Court of Appeal

Delivered on 18 March 2022

Summary

The Plaintiff, Mr Schokman, was living in shared accommodation whilst working on Daydream Island in the hospitality industry. His employer was CCIG Investments Pty Ltd. Mr Schokman awoke one morning to his flatmate, Mr Hewett, urinating into his mouth. This urination event aggravated Mr Schokman’s pre-existing medical conditions of narcolepsy and cataplexy. Mr Schokman sued his employer for breaching its duty of care and he also held his employer vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Hewett. The Court awarded damages in the amount of $431,738.88.

Facts

Fact #1

Mr Schokman was 25 years of age when he secured a role as a Food and Beverage Supervisor on Daydream Island. The employment contract, signed by Mr Schokman, provided that he live on the island in shared accommodation. He lived with one co-worker, Mr Hewett.

Fact #2

Fact #3

Prior to the incident, Mr Hewett had been drinking and was then in a state of semi‑consciousness when he urinated into Mr Schokman’s mouth. Mr Schokman woke up choking and inhaling Mr Hewett’s urine. He then began to have a cataplectic attack in the hallway.

Fact #4

The urination event caused a permanent aggravation of his cataplexy, an aggravation of his narcolepsy, and PTSD.

Fact #5

Mr Schokman alleged that his employer breached its duty of care by requiring him to live in shared accommodation and for not having any adequate policy in place with respect to alcohol consumption.

Initial Decision – Supreme Court at Rockhampton

The Court held Mr Schokman agreed to shared accommodation when he signed his employment contract.

The Court held that even if a policy was in place with respect to alcohol consumption, Mr Schokman was unable to prove that such a policy would have prevented the incident.

As there were no prior incidents involving Mr Hewett and his alcohol consumption, the Court held it would not be appropriate to hold the Employer liable for Mr Hewett’s actions.

Consequently, the Court found the Employer did not breach its duty of care, and Mr Schokman was not awarded any damages.

Court of Appeal

On appeal, the Court considered that the Employer required its employees to share accommodation facilities on the island, the Employer controlled the allocation of rooms to employees according to the employee’s work duties at the resort, and the Employer would routinely review each month whether rooms should be reallocated. The Court found that Mr Hewett was occupying the room as an employee, which established a connection between Mr Hewett’s employment and his actions. As a result, the Employer was held vicariously liable for Mr Hewett’s actions.

Takeaway

This case has broadened the scope for vicarious liability with respect to shared employee accommodation.

Schokman v CCIG Investments Pty Ltd