Case examines how volunteer management standards have evolved over four decades
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently dealt with a liability case where a worker sought damages for injuries sustained between 1984 and 1989 while attending a sporting club's premises as a young spectator.
The case centred on whether the organisation was liable for injuries caused by a volunteer who had regular access to office areas. The worker argued that the organisation failed in its duty of care by not properly supervising volunteers.
The claim included compensation for loss of earning capacity, with forensic accountants presenting various career trajectory scenarios had the injuries not occurred.
The sporting club heavily relied on volunteers during the 1980s. A former director testified that volunteers handled vital operations including fundraising and game-day activities. The finance manager confirmed that volunteers regularly accessed office areas to deposit cash from ticket sales into safes.
The then-CEO explained that volunteers sold membership and raffle tickets from designated areas. Notably, office staff would collect unsold tickets and money at half-time for reconciliation, indicating volunteers handled these responsibilities unsupervised for significant periods.
Evidence revealed a complete absence of formal volunteer management systems. The club's historian testified that "practically zero records" existed before 1992. A board member confirmed there were no written policies about volunteers or anything else.
The club admitted owing "a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risks of injury of which it knew or ought to have been aware to persons attending the premises." However, they argued this duty was limited to basic occupier's liability regarding the physical state of the premises.
The Court examined whether this duty extended to protecting attendees from harmful conduct by volunteers. Multiple witnesses testified about the informal nature of volunteer engagement, highlighting significant gaps in organisational oversight during that era.
Two forensic accountants presented evidence about the worker's potential career trajectories and earning capacity had the injuries not occurred. The Court had to evaluate various scenarios ranging from trade qualifications to professional careers.
The Court ultimately upheld the jury's finding of liability but reduced the damages award. On assessing damages, the Court noted: "
The exercise of 'disentanglement' discussed in those cases is more easily achieved. That is because the court is required to evaluate possibilities in these situations – not proof on a balance of probabilities."
The Court emphasised that assessing historical cases requires careful evaluation: "Where a pre-existing condition proved to have possible ongoing harmful consequences (capable of reasonable definition) to the plaintiff, even without any negligent conduct on the part of the defendant, cannot be disregarded in arriving at proper compensation."
The decision established that organisations must consider comprehensive safety obligations when engaging volunteers.
The Court awarded damages for pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and future medical expenses, though at reduced amounts from the jury's original verdict.
