Volunteer snags $1M after BBQ nightmare causes severe burns

The Supreme Court of Tasmania has upheld a finding that a volunteer chef who sustained severe burns when his barbeque caught fire contributed to his own injuries by 15%. Although the club attempted to show that this percentage was “manifestly inadequate”, the Full Court was satisfied that it was a true reflection of the volunteer’s conduct in response to the fire.

The case concerned a 44-year-old man who worked as a volunteer chef for a club’s lawn bowls event. The man was tasked with cooking sausages for the event. The club’s practice was to use a ceramic mug to catch the fat excreted from the sausages.

Soon after the man began cooking, the mug caught fire. The volunteer, concerned that the mug would explode and injure children nearby, reached into the barbeque to grab the mug’s handle and placed it on the ground. In the process, he sustained severe burns to his right hand.

Decision at first instance

At trial, the club submitted that the volunteer “caused or contribued to his own injuries by his own negligence”. The trial judge noted that the volunteer’s actions were to be judged based on the “situation of urgency” and that “due allowance was to be made for the unusual situation” in which the volunteer found himself.

However, the trial judge went on to find that the volunteer’s actions in removing the mug went “beyond misjudgment” and did contribute to his injury.

The trial judge awarded the volunteer $1,264,566, which was reduced by 15% to reflect his contributory negligence.

Decision of the Full Court

The club appealed the trial judge’s decision, stating the finding that the volunteer contributed by only 15% was “manifestly inadequate”, given the volunteer had “ample time to assess the situation” before responding.

The Full Court rejected the club’s submissions, noting that its practice of using the mug created “a situation that was fraught with risk and danger”.

The Full Court found that the reduction of 15% was not an unreasonable percentage and dismissed the club’s appeal.

Key Takeaways

• Where an employer’s negligence has caused a worker harm, the Court may consider whether the worker’s actions contributed to their own injury
• As the case above demonstrates, the Court will assess the worker’s conduct against the urgency of the situation
• Where a worker is found to have been contributorily negligent, the Court will reduce their compensation by the amount it deems appropriate