Injured office worker wins $420K after floor-mat concerns ignored

A Queensland employer adopted an "unreasonable stance" in insisting workers use plastic mats beneath their office chairs - despite complaints they were slippery, the Supreme Court has found in awarding an injured worker more than $400,000 in damages.

In 2006 two Invitro Technologies Pty Ltd workers complained to their office manager that the plastic floor mats issued to all workstations were "extremely slippery".

The workers said the mats caused their chairs to "flick out" from under them whenever they stood up, and were so dangerous they would prefer not to use them.

But the office manager said she had "orders" that all workstations should be the same, and told the workers not to remove the mats.

The following year, one of the workers stood up from her chair to access a bookshelf and, as she sat down, realised the chair had moved. By then she had started to fall, and landed on the floor, fracturing her sacrum (a large bone at the base of the spine).

She remained off work for nine months, during which time she was also diagnosed with depression, and sued her employer for negligence.

Employer claims worker "simply slipped"

Before Justice David Boddice, Invitro claimed the mat had no causal relationship with the fall, and said it hadn't been negligent because the worker simply slipped from her chair as she sought to resume her seat.

According to the employer, employees from an associated company had used similar mats for 10 years without a mishap or complaint. The mats made the chairs easier to move than on carpet, and their "rippled effect" provided traction, it said.

Invitro also claimed a "reasonable" employer must balance various workplace risks. The fact the mats overcame the difficulty of using the chair on carpet validated their use.

Justice Boddice rejected the view the worker "simply slipped", and said the employer adopted an "unreasonable stance" regarding the use of mats.

He found Invitro breached its duty of care in:

• instructing the worker to use the chair on the plastic mat when it knew - or should have known - it was a dangerous;
• failing to act on the workers' complaints - there was no evidence the employer investigated the issue; and
• failing to remove the mats when a reasonably prudent employer would have done so.

Justice Boddice said the claim that workers from outside the company had not encountered problems with similar mats had "no forensic weight".

He also noted that the mat was not tended in evidence and the employer did not offer any expert evidence regarding the level of friction between the mat and chair.

Justice Boddice awarded the worker $419,461 for past and future economic loss and other damages.