Injured Father Christmas not entitled to compensation

santa-on-workcover

The Victorian Court of Appeal has recently reversed the decision of an important legal controversy whereby the County Court Judge awarded $80,000 to a Father Christmas who was kicked in the knee by a  youth on his way from his throne to his dressing room.  The Chief Justice and Acting Justice of Appeal Kyrou agreed with Justice of Appeal Harper’s restrained judgment which was that the first instance judgment was tosh and that the risk of violent assaults on Father Christmases at shopping centres is fanciful and far-fetched so as not to give rise to a duty of care to prevent it.

Injured Father Christmas not entitled to compensation

In  Bainbridge v James (t/as James Leigh Promotions) [2013] VSCA 12 the Court of Appeal found an employer and an owner and manager of a Victorian shopping centre where a Father Christmas was assaulted by a third party (a teenager) did not owe a duty of care to protect the appellant (the injured worker who played Father Christmas) from physical injury caused by the criminal actions of a third party.

Facts

The appellant/injured worker was employed to “dispense the small gifts and general Christmas cheer” as Father Christmas at a shopping centre in Victoria.

The appellant was usually provided with a security guard to escort him from his “Santa Claus throne” to the management office of the shopping centre where he changed into his casual clothes.

On 22 December 2007, the appellant concluded his shift and proceeded to the management office via a passage which led to some public toilets and then to his destination, but on his journey, a teenager verbally abused him and kicked his left knee.

The appellant sued both his employers and the owner of the shopping centre claiming each owed a duty of care to him, each were in breach of that duty, and he suffered damage as a result.

The trial judge found for the appellant against his employers, concluding “the provision of a safe system of work in all the circumstances involved the provision of a security guard” but dismissed the appellant’s claim against the centre’s owners and managers.

The appellant sought for the court to overturn the dismissal of his claim against the centre’s owners and managers and contended the damages he was awarded against his employers were inadequate.

The appellant argued his employers and the owners and managers of the shopping centre almost invariably provided him with an escort for the purpose of security which they would not have done unless they foresaw the kind of danger to which he was subjected to on the date of the incident.

The appellant further argued the defendants called no evidence about the extent or reality of any risk and gave no explanation of their failure to do so, which allowed the court to infer, had those parties or witnesses been called on their behalf, their evidence would not have assisted the relevant defence case.

Decision

The Court of Appeal found neither the employer nor the owner and manager of the shopping centre owed a duty of care to protect the appellant from physical injury by a third party.

An employer’s obligation is to exercise reasonable care, not to warrant safety.

The court stated “the risk that the appellant would be assaulted while performing his role, or while moving between his “throne” and the rooms in which he changed clothes, was far-fetched and fanciful”.

Indeed, the appellant himself stated he never, during the course of his work as Father Christmas, apprehended any physical harm to himself.

The evaluation of risk, including its foreseeability, is a matter of objective assessment.

By providing an escort on most occasions, the defendants were not transforming the risk into something more real or creating a duty of care.

Furthermore, where the court has no reason to think a risk is reasonably foreseeable, there is no relevant inference upon which the court can draw by reason of a lack of evidence of the extent or reality of any risk.

The Court further stated imposing a duty of care on the defendants would impose an indeterminate duty on an indeterminate class as there would be questions of when security guards were required and for whom.

The evaluation of risk, including its foreseeability, is a matter of objective assessment.

By providing a readily available escort, the defendants were not transforming a risk into something more real nor creating a duty of care, where objectively, no reasonably foreseeably risk existed.

Implications

Where a court has no reason to think a risk is reasonably foreseeable, there is no relevant inference upon which the court can with greater confidence draw by the failure of the defendants to call a witness on the subject of the extent or reality of any risk.

A duty of care is not created simply because one person, without having any relevant contractual relationship with another, becomes an integral part of the operations of the other.

Our thoughts?

The poor bugger was injured in the course of his employment… That he was provided with regular security surely demonstrates the inherent risks of playing Father Christmas… so we believe he should be entitled to compensation. How much- however – depends on the severity of his permanent injury. Perhaps had Father Christmas read the relevant legislation and some legal cases, he would have known that K80 is the average compensation paid out in Victoria, and would put himself and his injury on a scale compared to that of a young quadriplegic for example… we would have told him to take and  run with his sack through the County Court’s chimney as fast as possible!

 

 



This post has been seen 1627 times.

3 Responses to “Injured Father Christmas not entitled to compensation”

  1. He was injured during the course of his employment full stop and the Judge can tell all the rubbish he wants!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Any reasonable person who goes to a shopping centre knows full well that there is a risk of being abused or assaulted. It happens everyday.

    To assert that such an event is “far fetched and fanciful” is utterly devoid of any sensibility or indeed, any sense of reality. Surely the red suit would increase that risk because it creates a target.

    There is security at our local shopping centre. There is security at most shopping centres. Why is that? Surely the presence of such security is, in of itself, the evidence that there is a very real risk within that environment.

    I hope this goes to the High Court and the full bench is able to overturn what is an utterly ridiculous proposition.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0