At Maxiom Injury Lawyers, we are passionate about achieving the best possible outcome for all of our clients.
Recently, our Workcover lawyers in Melbourne secured a successful outcome in a complex WorkCover claim involving two defendants, an airline and an airport, revolving around an injury sustained on the airport tarmac.
What Happened?
Our client, a ground crew worker, came to us after sustaining serious injuries while working at a busy metropolitan airport.
The client tripped on uneven and cracked tarmac while performing their regular duties.
The fall caused our client to suffer injuries to his right knee, ankle, and lower back.
He had to undergo surgery and rehabilitation, and even afterwards was unable to return to his pre-injury employment, and still experiences ongoing pain and mobility limitations.
We lodged a Serious Injury Application due to our client’s ongoing pain and suffering.
Proceedings went ahead at the Country Court against both the airline and the airport.
What Happened During The Proceedings?
The defendants vigorously disputed liability for the incident.
Each party contended that the other was responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and repair of the tarmac.
While the airport operator bore control of the defective surface, the area was also regularly used and managed by the airline for its ground operations.
During proceedings, the airline maintained that the airport was responsible for surface maintenance, whereas the airport argued that such responsibilities were delegated under a contractual lease agreement.
The issue was further complicated by the incident taking place along the boundary of the airline’s leased area.
This made it unclear as to whether the tarmac fell within the airline’s or the airport operator’s responsibility.
To bolster our client’s position, our firm obtained an expert engineering report, which concluded that the damaged tarmac posed a clear tripping hazard that should have been identified and repaired through regular inspection and maintenance.
The expert also concluded that the airline and the airport operator had failed to implement adequate safety systems to prevent the development of such hazards.
What Was The Outcome Of The Case?
The specific matter was originally scheduled for an informal settlement conference, but it was not resolved because the defendants could not agree on their respective shares of any settlement.
The case was subsequently referred to a Court-ordered mediation.
At mediation, we successfully demonstrated that both defendants played a role in creating an unsafe working environment.
The claim was resolved on the same day, with both the airline and the airline operator contributing to a substantial amount that compensated our client for pain and suffering.
Our Closing Remarks
We highlighted this case as it showcases the critical role of persistence in complex WorkCover matters involving multiple defendants.
Through no fault of his own, our client was forced to pursue County Court proceedings and attend mediation.
This was due to the defendants being unable to resolve the matter between themselves.
Although this matter could have been settled without the need to go to court, at Maxiom Injury Lawyers, our firm is proud to have advocated for our client and secured a fair outcome, regardless of the route it took to achieve it.
