The Facts

Male assailant posing as customer asks price of necklace

On 1 November 2015, the sales assistant was behind the counter at a jewellery shop performing her usual duties.

The jewellery shop was open to a public arcade within a shopping centre and customers could access the shop simply by walking from the arcade area into the shop area.

At approximately 2pm, a male assailant posing as a customer entered the shop and asked the sales assistant the price of a necklace in the display cabinet. The sales assistant replied that the price was $13,000.

The assailant then asked if that was the best price, prompting the sales assistant to remove the necklace from the display cabinet and scan it at a nearby cash register.

Assailant unsuccessfully attempts to snatch necklace

The sales assistant then returned and informed the assailant of the best price, being $7,900, at which point the assailant asked if he could feel the weight of the necklace.

The sales assistant asked the assailant for his driver's licence. The assailant pretended to reach for his wallet before aggressively lunging across the counter and attempting to snatch the necklace out of her hands.

The sales assistant held onto the necklace and resisted, resulting in the chain breaking and falling to the floor and causing the shop assistant's hand to bleed.

The assailant then ran from the store empty-handed.

Sales assistant suffers psychiatric injury following attempted robbery

The sales assistant was visibly upset immediately after the incident, with her colleagues describing her as being very shaken up and with shaking hands. She could not speak about the incident and expressed a desire to go home.

After the incident, she became nervous and anxious, experiencing panic attacks, agitation and mood swings, startling at loud noises, drinking heavily and preferring not to leave home.

As a result of the attempted robbery, the sales assistant suffered psychiatric injury, making it impossible for her to go back to working in retail.

She took legal action against her employer in the District Court of Queensland, claiming that her psychiatric injury was caused by her employer's negligence. It was up to the court to determine if this was the case.

case a - The case for the sales assistant

case b - The case for the employer

My employer knew that a violent crime like this one could occur. There were 31 snatch and grab incidents in its 34 Queensland stores in the five years prior to the incident.
It was foreseeable by my employer that I might suffer psychiatric injury if attacked by a much larger and younger male, in a violent struggle for an expensive item as happened in this incident.
My employer should have taken precautions to make my work safe. It should have employed a security guard to deter any would-be robbers such as the assailant.
It also should have installed security doors at the entrance to the shop. This would have prevented the assailant from
making a quick escape, which in turn would have discouraged him from committing the robbery.
It also should have displayed signs warning of the use of CCTV cameras. If the assailant was aware that he was being filmed, it is unlikely he would have attempted the robbery.
My employer also should have trained me to secure identification from customers before removing expensive jewellery, such as the necklace in question, from the display cabinet. Had this occurred, I would have taken this step, which would have prevented the robbery.

We could not have foreseen that the incident would cause the sales assistant to suffer psychiatric injury, since she had not disclosed to us that she had a drinking problem, or that she was taking antidepressants to manage a pre-existing anxiety disorder.
In any event, the sales assistant's psychiatric injury was the result of previous traumas, including a motor vehicle accident and being witness to a murder. It was not a result of the attempted robbery.
The cost of employing a full-time security guard for 60 hours per week in every one of our stores in Australia would be an unreasonable precaution, as it would cost in excess of $12 million. Security doors are not commonly used in any other similar jewellery stores and would not necessarily have prevented the incident.
Everyone knows that jewellery stores are monitored by CCTV cameras. Since the incident we have installed signs warning of the presence of CCTV cameras in our other stores and this measure has not prevented snatch and grab robberies.
The sales assistant was trained to follow a six-step sales process. When the assailant jumped straight to the end of the process by asking the price, she was trained to slow the process down and gauge his intent by going back to step one.
Had she done this, rather than removing the necklace from the cabinet, the risk of the incident would have been avoided.

So, which case won?

Cast your judgment below to find out

Case A Case B

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Phil Griffin

Workers compensation claims

Stacks Law Firm