Matters in the Media

Shot Five Times at Work. Won $3 Million. Then Had to Pay It Back.

Coca Cola v Pareezer [2006] NSWCA 45

A Coke delivery worker was shot five times at Werrington TAFE on his first visit back after being mugged there a year earlier. He won $3 million at trial — then the Court of Appeal took it away.

This case is one of the most important lessons in personal injury law: proving your employer was negligent is only half the job. You also have to prove their negligence actually caused your injury.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831
5
Times the plaintiff was shot
$3M
Awarded at trial, then overturned on appeal
$560K
Already spent on medical treatment when Coke tried to claw it back
The Case

Coca Cola v Pareezer
[2006] NSWCA 45

The plaintiff was contracted by Coca Cola as a filler — someone who drives a large red Coke truck to restock and collect money from vending machines. Fillers received no security training.

One of his routes included Werrington TAFE in Western Sydney. About a year before the shooting, he was seriously mugged there. He didn't return for 12 months. During that time his supervisor told him the attack was a "one off" and things would be safer when he went back — despite Coke having issued internal memos acknowledging gang attacks on fillers and installing new tamper-proof safes to protect its money, while doing very little to protect the people handling it.

On his first trip back to Werrington, a man who had been out of prison for less than two months for violent crimes approached him with a gun. The plaintiff explained the safe could only be opened at the depot. The man asked for the truck keys. As the plaintiff reached for them, he was shot five times. He survived, but was left seriously injured.

Read the full judgment on NSW Caselaw
Don't feel like reading? Watch our breakdown on TikTok

A win at trial. A loss on appeal. A lesson in causation.

At trial the Supreme Court found Coke in breach — specifically for sending fillers back to a site it knew posed an unreasonable risk of assault, and for the supervisor's false reassurance that the earlier mugging was a "one off" when Coke's own internal memos showed it knew otherwise. The court found that had the plaintiff been told the truth, he wouldn't have gone back. It awarded him around $3 million.

The Court of Appeal overturned this entirely. Its reasoning came down to one critical gap: the plaintiff's evidence was that Coke knew about gang violence against fillers. But the man who shot him wasn't a gang member — he was an opportunistic individual acting alone. The danger that materialised was different in nature to the danger Coke had been warned about.

The appeal court also found that even if Coke had changed the truck colours or provided better training, there was no convincing evidence it would have stopped a man described as an irrational criminal prepared to take extreme risks for negligible financial gain. The causal link between the breach and the injury simply wasn't there.

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal saw it differently

The facts weren't in dispute. What split the courts was whether Coke's failures actually caused this particular shooting — or whether it would have happened regardless.

Supreme Court — Trial

Coke's false reassurance and failure to manage risk caused the injury

The supervisor knew the mugging wasn't a "one off" — Coke's own memos proved gang attacks on fillers were a known risk. Telling the plaintiff otherwise was a breach. Had he been told the truth, he wouldn't have returned to Werrington.

The distinctive red truck could also have been de-identified at reasonable cost, reducing the risk of targeting. Coke had the money and the knowledge to act — it chose not to.

✓ $3 million awarded to plaintiff
Court of Appeal — Unanimous

The injury didn't materialise from the risk the breach was about

The warning about "gang" violence was irrelevant — the shooter was a lone opportunist, not a gang member. The danger the plaintiff was warned about was not the danger that eventuated.

And even if Coke had changed the truck or provided proper training, the court wasn't satisfied it would have stopped a man who was prepared to shoot someone five times for a truck he couldn't even drive away with the money from.

✕ Damages overturned. Plaintiff ordered to repay.

Why causation is the hardest part of any negligence claim

Proving your employer was negligent is not enough on its own. Courts require you to establish each of these steps — and this case failed at the last one.

1

Was there a duty of care?

Coke owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable precautions against significant and foreseeable risks of harm at work. Both courts agreed on this.

✓ Established
2

Was there a breach of that duty?

Both courts agreed Coke had failed in some respects — particularly around the supervisor's false reassurance and the failure to de-identify trucks and fillers. The breach was established.

✓ Established
3

Did the breach actually cause the injury?

This is where the plaintiff failed on appeal. The breach was about gang violence — but a gang didn't shoot him. An irrational lone individual did. The specific risk that materialised was not the risk the breach related to. And even if every precaution had been taken, the court wasn't convinced it would have stopped him.

✕ Not established on appeal
Alex's Take
"

This case should be required reading for anyone who thinks negligence claims are straightforward. Coke clearly failed this man in multiple ways. The truck was distinctive. The supervisor lied to him. They protected the money better than the people. Any reasonable person looking at those facts would say something went wrong.

But the Court of Appeal asked the harder question: would doing the right thing have actually stopped this particular shooting? And the honest answer was no — not convincingly. The shooter was irrational, armed, and prepared to shoot someone five times for a truck he couldn't even access the money from. That's not someone who changes his mind because the truck is a different colour.

The lesson for anyone pursuing a workplace injury claim involving a third party's criminal act is this: you need evidence — not just argument — that the precautions your employer failed to take would have made a real difference to your specific situation.

Alex Bassingthwaighte
Alex Bassingthwaighte
Founder & Principal, Claimwise
Ready when you are

Tell us what happened.

One conversation. No pressure. Tell us a bit about your situation and we'll be in touch.

Make an Enquiry

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Get Free Advice →