Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 5

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Alistair Ignacio

Active Member
10 November 2018
5
0
31
Hi, can someone explain to me what Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 5 actually means? I'm having such a hard time understanding it.
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
1,138
187
2,394
It means what the section says >>> Civil liability excluded from act....

Probably better if you add some context to your question... What are you wanting to know Specifically?

 

Alistair Ignacio

Active Member
10 November 2018
5
0
31
It means what the section says >>> Civil liability excluded from act....

Probably better if you add some context to your question... What are you wanting to know Specifically?
Like what exactly is excluded? Is it saying that you cannot gain compensation through civil liability if you can gain workers compensation under the workers compensation and rehabilitation act? Also it says “other than under s 34 (1)(c) or 35”. Is it saying you CAN or CAN’T get compensation through civil liability if your injury falls under s 34(1)(c) or 35 of the workers compensation and rehabilitation act?
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
1,138
187
2,394
Is it saying that you cannot gain compensation through civil liability if you can gain workers compensation under the workers compensation and rehabilitation act?
On my reading.... Correct, Except in the circumstances described in S34(1)(c) or 35 of the indicate act .... S34(1)(c) while the worker is temporarily absent from the place of employment during an ordinary recess if the event is not due to the worker voluntarily subjecting themself to an abnormal risk of injury during the recess.
OR >>>>>> S35 WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION ACT 2003 - SECT 35 Other circumstances ( these circumsatnces seem to be fairly self explanatory)

By 'adding context to your question', I meant if you explain the particular circumstances around the injury, someone may be able to better comment on whether this section of this act applies in your case or not
 

Alistair Ignacio

Active Member
10 November 2018
5
0
31
On my reading.... Correct, Except in the circumstances described in S34(1)(c) or 35 of the indicate act .... S34(1)(c) while the worker is temporarily absent from the place of employment during an ordinary recess if the event is not due to the worker voluntarily subjecting themself to an abnormal risk of injury during the recess.
OR >>>>>> S35 WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION ACT 2003 - SECT 35 Other circumstances ( these circumsatnces seem to be fairly self explanatory)

By 'adding context to your question', I meant if you explain the particular circumstances around the injury, someone may be able to better comment on whether this section of this act applies in your case or not
Well, for instance, if a police officer was to sustain psychiatric injury due to witnessing traumatic events in the period of their employment. The more specific scenario that I’m considering is what if a person’s negligent driving caused psychiatric harm to a police officer, can the police officer sue the negligent person?
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
1,138
187
2,394
if a police officer was to sustain psychiatric injury due to witnessing traumatic events in the period of their employment
You mean psychological trauma ie, PTSD?.... In that event I believe police have quite good counseling available to them as well as paid leave.
The more specific scenario that I’m considering is what if a person’s negligent driving caused psychiatric harm to a police officer, can the police officer sue the negligent person?
Fairly confident in saying, no they couldn't... If the officer suffered psychological trauma as a direct result of them being involved in an accident (whilst on duty) then the above scenario applies.

I can't see how any person (including a person in the course of thier employment) who is subjected to psychological trauma through witnessing an event could sue a person, even one charged with negligence .... happy to be corrected on any point...... But that aside, I'm unsure how the act you are talking about is relevant in that scenario?