Ex-Qantas worker awarded $700K
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex-Qantas worker awarded $700K
Fri "Courier Mail"
Ex-Qantas worker awarded $700K
25jul03
A FORMER Qantas baggage handler was today awarded almost $700,000 for a workplace back injury which he claimed resulted in the break-up of his marriage.
Paul Lewis was working at Sydney airport on March 15, 1999, when he lifted a car windscreen and instantly injured his back.
"He noticed it was very heavy and at the same time experienced very severe pain in his back," NSW District Court Judge Colin O'Connor said in his judgment.
Judge O'Connor awarded Mr Lewis $696,496 in damages.
A hearing was told a Qantas guide sheet led Mr Lewis to assume the windscreen was 25kg, but his brother Nigel, who was the head baggage handler, gave evidence that it was in excess of 70kg.
The court heard the incident had aggravated a pre-existing condition in Mr Lewis' lower back and he was forced to have spinal fusion surgery.
He still experiences severe back pain.
Due to the ongoing problems with his back, Mr Lewis' employment with Qantas was terminated in November 2000.
The 39-year-old told the court the injury caused marriage problems because "he was unable to engage in any satisfactory sexual relationship with his wife", leading to depression.
They separated in February 2001 and Mr Lewis now lives in Maroochydore where he is a single parent to the couple's three children.
"He has adopted the role of house-husband looking after the three children," Judge O'Connor said.
He found Qantas had breached its duty of care by not warning Mr Lewis of the windscreen's weight.
"The item that the plaintiff lifted, did not have a warning sticker on it and in fact, the plaintiff was led to believe by the trim sheet that it weighed 25kg," he said.
==========================================
Ex-Qantas worker awarded $700K
25jul03
A FORMER Qantas baggage handler was today awarded almost $700,000 for a workplace back injury which he claimed resulted in the break-up of his marriage.
Paul Lewis was working at Sydney airport on March 15, 1999, when he lifted a car windscreen and instantly injured his back.
"He noticed it was very heavy and at the same time experienced very severe pain in his back," NSW District Court Judge Colin O'Connor said in his judgment.
Judge O'Connor awarded Mr Lewis $696,496 in damages.
A hearing was told a Qantas guide sheet led Mr Lewis to assume the windscreen was 25kg, but his brother Nigel, who was the head baggage handler, gave evidence that it was in excess of 70kg.
The court heard the incident had aggravated a pre-existing condition in Mr Lewis' lower back and he was forced to have spinal fusion surgery.
He still experiences severe back pain.
Due to the ongoing problems with his back, Mr Lewis' employment with Qantas was terminated in November 2000.
The 39-year-old told the court the injury caused marriage problems because "he was unable to engage in any satisfactory sexual relationship with his wife", leading to depression.
They separated in February 2001 and Mr Lewis now lives in Maroochydore where he is a single parent to the couple's three children.
"He has adopted the role of house-husband looking after the three children," Judge O'Connor said.
He found Qantas had breached its duty of care by not warning Mr Lewis of the windscreen's weight.
"The item that the plaintiff lifted, did not have a warning sticker on it and in fact, the plaintiff was led to believe by the trim sheet that it weighed 25kg," he said.
==========================================
I wish that the above was all a big wind up!
We could all have a laugh and move on to pay our very reasonable insurance premiums on the way to work with our reasonable and honest co workers who wouldnt think of defrauding work cover. Oh hang on a minute I can't find the keys to my magic carpet.
Willie
Willie
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Over 'ere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sympathy goes to the injured worker. It was proved in court that he was injured thru poor enforcement and management of Health & Safety Regs. in his workplace. I wouldn't want to go thru what he is/has had to endure and hope the payout he received goes some way to restoring his quality of life. For me, the cost doesn't come anywhere near to the value of the benefit. I knew a guy a long time ago who worked in the Wheels Section of a Oz airline. He was even younger than this fellow. Thru various screwed up treatments based on misguided diagnosis (over a long period), by various experts, he eventualy went thru fusion surgery (after various other forms of home cooked treatment) and really suffered along the way. Probably he is still suffering...I 've lost track of him. I would not like to be in either of their shoes. Whilst some baggage handlers are silly B's (not that that has anything to do with it) ...a lot are not....just like the variation in personalities we find in all other parts of the aviation business. And no..... I am not a baggage handler.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The item that the plaintiff lifted, did not have a warning sticker on it and in fact, the plaintiff was led to believe by the trim sheet that it weighed 25kg," he said.
If the load/trim sheet was reflecting a weight of 25 kgs and the item was infact in excess of 70 kilos then I think the court should be more worried about QF load control than anything else.
This fellow has proven that the item did NOT weigh what it was suposed to weigh, and that is now considered to be fact as it was proven in court.
Point to a systemic failure, or a one off occurance......just a thought.
If the load/trim sheet was reflecting a weight of 25 kgs and the item was infact in excess of 70 kilos then I think the court should be more worried about QF load control than anything else.
This fellow has proven that the item did NOT weigh what it was suposed to weigh, and that is now considered to be fact as it was proven in court.
Point to a systemic failure, or a one off occurance......just a thought.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this report is correct, the insurance company must be feeling pretty foolish for not investigating further before going to court.
Firstly, sending automotive windscreens by airfreight is extremely rare, because they seldom arrive intact, no matter how well packed. It is also not cost effective.
Secondly, no car windscreen has ever weighed, nor ever will weigh 70kg (with the exception of bulletproof). Even with packing.
In comparison, the largest single windscreen I've ever lifted is the Mercedes 0305 bus (2 halves) which weigh in at around 35kg. Around 1.6 by 1.5m by 8mm laminated.
Or the Volvo F12 Globetrotter (massive cab) 2.2 by 1.0 by 6.76mm at around 30kg.
Paul Lewis was working at Sydney airport on March 15, 1999, when he lifted a car windscreen and instantly injured his back.
A hearing was told a Qantas guide sheet led Mr Lewis to assume the windscreen was 25kg, but his brother Nigel, who was the head baggage handler, gave evidence that it was in excess of 70kg.
A hearing was told a Qantas guide sheet led Mr Lewis to assume the windscreen was 25kg, but his brother Nigel, who was the head baggage handler, gave evidence that it was in excess of 70kg.
Secondly, no car windscreen has ever weighed, nor ever will weigh 70kg (with the exception of bulletproof). Even with packing.
In comparison, the largest single windscreen I've ever lifted is the Mercedes 0305 bus (2 halves) which weigh in at around 35kg. Around 1.6 by 1.5m by 8mm laminated.
Or the Volvo F12 Globetrotter (massive cab) 2.2 by 1.0 by 6.76mm at around 30kg.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Jarse, the courts are full of people who try to milk the system.
Usually cases such as these have had P.I.'s with camcorders documenting the claimants for 25 out of 24 hours a day to try to discredit their claims.
Even to the point (
) of sneaking into the bedrooms of some plaintiffs, to try to discredit their claim(s).
My guess is that this poor guy did himself some serious damage by trying to lift something that was MIS-labelled, eg, perhaps it was a truck windscreen - front and rear, or ALL the glass for one vehicle on a "RUSH" consignment.
I don't doubt the authenticity of this case in today's climate, and also extend him my best wishes for a happier future.
Usually cases such as these have had P.I.'s with camcorders documenting the claimants for 25 out of 24 hours a day to try to discredit their claims.
Even to the point (
) of sneaking into the bedrooms of some plaintiffs, to try to discredit their claim(s).My guess is that this poor guy did himself some serious damage by trying to lift something that was MIS-labelled, eg, perhaps it was a truck windscreen - front and rear, or ALL the glass for one vehicle on a "RUSH" consignment.
I don't doubt the authenticity of this case in today's climate, and also extend him my best wishes for a happier future.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, sorry Bindook.
Having worked for Pilkington ACI Automotive Glass for several years (the primary automotive glass manufacturer for Holdens, Ford, Toyota and Mitsubishi in Oz), there is no way the consignment would have been production line related. They are shipped in bins of 100 and by road or rail, as there is little chance of breakage using those mediums, and the bins in which they are stored are unsuitable for aircraft holds (floor loading intensity). We never sent glass by air.
When you talk of "just in time" stock control (I assume you are), in the automotive game, units on hand are measured in hundreds, or sometimes thousands. Not ones and twos. Ten windscreens on a production line, even when installed using urethane technology is less than 30 mins on the production line.
The States produce several times as many cars than us. Our market is not big enough or run 'lean' enough to warrant standby airfreight.
Thank you very much
Having worked for Pilkington ACI Automotive Glass for several years (the primary automotive glass manufacturer for Holdens, Ford, Toyota and Mitsubishi in Oz), there is no way the consignment would have been production line related. They are shipped in bins of 100 and by road or rail, as there is little chance of breakage using those mediums, and the bins in which they are stored are unsuitable for aircraft holds (floor loading intensity). We never sent glass by air.
When you talk of "just in time" stock control (I assume you are), in the automotive game, units on hand are measured in hundreds, or sometimes thousands. Not ones and twos. Ten windscreens on a production line, even when installed using urethane technology is less than 30 mins on the production line.
The States produce several times as many cars than us. Our market is not big enough or run 'lean' enough to warrant standby airfreight.
Thank you very much
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, nosewheel. That's what I wrote in my original post but it didn't turn out.
They're usually packed in wooden crates, etc. But you wouldn't need to be Einstein to work out the whole package weighs more than 25kg. Quite often the glass itself weighs in excess of 25kg, but it's packing much more than the glass itself.
I think you're right, and the journo's wrong........AGAIN
They're usually packed in wooden crates, etc. But you wouldn't need to be Einstein to work out the whole package weighs more than 25kg. Quite often the glass itself weighs in excess of 25kg, but it's packing much more than the glass itself.
I think you're right, and the journo's wrong........AGAIN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: nth west-- Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"aggravated a pre-existing condition"
Geez ,he must have had a good lawyer.
Maybe he hadnt been to a "bend the knees-keep back straight " course ,therefore could argue he has never been taught to lift properly.
Thats life these days ,but is another example of how the world is going.
Someone mentioned if baggage was over weight they wouldnt handle it--------no wonder companies want to get rid of people and contract the work out..
As for his wife leaving him because of it seems a bit odd when she p!ssed off and left him with the kids.Me thinks she wanted to start afresh,but bet she will appear on the scene again now he has a fist full of dollars.
The back is a funny piece of work ,and i have ruptered a disc water ski-ing just by hitching my shorts up with one hand ,but i will lay a 100 to 1 if i do it again at work then i will have to wear it.
Dont think ive ever looked at the weight before lifting---------its either light ,heavy ,or bl@@dy heavy.,the latter i will drop anyway.
Sure he did it at work and went through pain and an operation,but that sort of money is a joke.
Geez ,he must have had a good lawyer.
Maybe he hadnt been to a "bend the knees-keep back straight " course ,therefore could argue he has never been taught to lift properly.
Thats life these days ,but is another example of how the world is going.
Someone mentioned if baggage was over weight they wouldnt handle it--------no wonder companies want to get rid of people and contract the work out..
As for his wife leaving him because of it seems a bit odd when she p!ssed off and left him with the kids.Me thinks she wanted to start afresh,but bet she will appear on the scene again now he has a fist full of dollars.
The back is a funny piece of work ,and i have ruptered a disc water ski-ing just by hitching my shorts up with one hand ,but i will lay a 100 to 1 if i do it again at work then i will have to wear it.
Dont think ive ever looked at the weight before lifting---------its either light ,heavy ,or bl@@dy heavy.,the latter i will drop anyway.
Sure he did it at work and went through pain and an operation,but that sort of money is a joke.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice guys!!
I'll take your word for it that this guy was a fraud and doesn't deserve a penny.
You have gathered ALL the facts, considered ALL the evidence and have a SOUND KNOWLEDGE of the LAW and how it applies to THIS CASE - and have extensive experience in the field of law, so you can now pass judgement.
Why are you guys flying aeroplanes - when you obviouslyhave the talent and expertise to be sitting on the Supreme Court?
You have gathered ALL the facts, considered ALL the evidence and have a SOUND KNOWLEDGE of the LAW and how it applies to THIS CASE - and have extensive experience in the field of law, so you can now pass judgement.
Why are you guys flying aeroplanes - when you obviouslyhave the talent and expertise to be sitting on the Supreme Court?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: nth west-- Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Colonel ,not a fraud at all.
I dont think to many would go through operations etc for a "chance" of getting a payout.
The way i read it is ,yes ,he did do his back at work--fair enough,but he had pre-existing condition.
Did he notify his employers of this before he was assigned lifting jobs.
Did he lift in the appropriate way----the registered weight may have been different but you dont have to be Einstien to work things out.
The rest is history------he has survived 4 years of being followed ,photographed etc from insurance mobs ,his wife leaving him for whatever reason ,but looks better if its for "associated disorders" ,and he is left children to raise.
As you mention i dont know the full story.No 2 people are the same,but ive known many with exactly the same injury and fusion done who didnt get a dime out the company and are doing the exact same job somewhere else now.
Another friend of mine got half that amount 20 years ago.Took 5 years with a "pay if we win lawyer" because the company(makes qantas look like a lolly shop) kept deferring things.Then he was lucky to get a magistrate who didnt like multi national companies...Sure ,he stil gets the sore back etc ,but has a steel fabriction bussiness at home ,and does more strenuous things than the job he originally worked at.
Lets face it ,who doesnt get back and neck pain.
Also know others who have been caught out----sure they were hurt at the time but carried things on to long.
Also know a P.I. for insurance companies ,and boy ,can he tell some stories.
Im not condeming the poor guy.
Im just amazed at the results for an incorrect weight label when "feel"is the most important thing.
I also reckon Qantas didnt conduct a "how to lift"course and that was the key factor.
Where i work ,since all this duty of care crap has come in ,each year we get accessed on the machines we operate ,isolations ,lifting---------you name it ,we do it.
Reason being-----once we have signed all appropriate paper work the onus is on us--------pass the buck.
Hey ,im not be-grudging the guy ,hes human ,and why not try an get something,but theres a lot more warrantable cases that get nothing.
So at the end of the day its luck---hangs in the balance of the lawyer and magistrate.Results arent consistant--just LUCK
I dont think to many would go through operations etc for a "chance" of getting a payout.
The way i read it is ,yes ,he did do his back at work--fair enough,but he had pre-existing condition.
Did he notify his employers of this before he was assigned lifting jobs.
Did he lift in the appropriate way----the registered weight may have been different but you dont have to be Einstien to work things out.
The rest is history------he has survived 4 years of being followed ,photographed etc from insurance mobs ,his wife leaving him for whatever reason ,but looks better if its for "associated disorders" ,and he is left children to raise.
As you mention i dont know the full story.No 2 people are the same,but ive known many with exactly the same injury and fusion done who didnt get a dime out the company and are doing the exact same job somewhere else now.
Another friend of mine got half that amount 20 years ago.Took 5 years with a "pay if we win lawyer" because the company(makes qantas look like a lolly shop) kept deferring things.Then he was lucky to get a magistrate who didnt like multi national companies...Sure ,he stil gets the sore back etc ,but has a steel fabriction bussiness at home ,and does more strenuous things than the job he originally worked at.
Lets face it ,who doesnt get back and neck pain.
Also know others who have been caught out----sure they were hurt at the time but carried things on to long.
Also know a P.I. for insurance companies ,and boy ,can he tell some stories.
Im not condeming the poor guy.
Im just amazed at the results for an incorrect weight label when "feel"is the most important thing.
I also reckon Qantas didnt conduct a "how to lift"course and that was the key factor.
Where i work ,since all this duty of care crap has come in ,each year we get accessed on the machines we operate ,isolations ,lifting---------you name it ,we do it.
Reason being-----once we have signed all appropriate paper work the onus is on us--------pass the buck.
Hey ,im not be-grudging the guy ,hes human ,and why not try an get something,but theres a lot more warrantable cases that get nothing.
So at the end of the day its luck---hangs in the balance of the lawyer and magistrate.Results arent consistant--just LUCK
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also heard on the grapevine that a Q.F -400 captain also suffered a back injury whilst lifing his wallet out of his bag !
Now ducking for cover,
be gone for a while ,
stay safe
Now ducking for cover,
be gone for a while ,
stay safe
