Bunnings sued for $1.4m after woman claimed to suffer brain injury from hammock

A woman is suing Bunnings after she claims she suffered brain damage after being thrown from a hammock she bought at the retailer.

Retail giant Bunnings is being sued for more than $1.4 million by a woman who claims she suffered a brain injury after being thrown from a hammock she bought at the hardware store.

Julie Kilsby, 49, was injured after she was flipped from a hammock purchased at Bunnings, resulting in her hitting her head on a brick window sill.

A claim lodged with the Supreme Court of Queensland states the incident left Ms Kilsby with a traumatic brain injury and ongoing issues such as memory loss, seizures and chronic headaches.

Ms Kilsby bought the $99 hammock from a Bunnings store in Maroochydore on January 3, 2020.

She set up the hammock according to the assembly instructions but found the fabric to be very taut between the two ends of the frame.

According to the statement of claim, the instructions supplies with the hammock did not warn of “any risk of injury attempting to, get into, or lie or sit in the hammock when its fabric was new and tightly stretched”.

Julie Kilsby claims she suffered a traumatic brain injury from a hammock she purchased at Bunnings. Picture: Supplied

There was also reportedly nothing in the instructions that stated the fabric should be allowed to stretch and sag before use.

When Ms Kilsby attempted to get into the hammock, she was “flipped by, and from, the fabric of the hammock” and “struck her head on a brick window sill”.

“The Plaintiff consequentially lost consciousness for a short period and sustained a concussion and other personal injuries,” the claim states.

According to the claim, Ms Kilsby suffered a traumatic brain injury and symptoms of depression and anxiety caused by a chronic adjustment disorder.

She also continues to suffer from impaired cognition and memory, seizure episodes, anxiety, chronic headaches and migraines, dizziness and tinnitus and a reduction in her verbal skills.

Ms Kilsby is claiming $1.4 million in damages, including $180,000 in future care, $250,000 in future economic loss, more than $48,000 in future and recurrent expenses and almost $50,000 in past economic loss.

News.com.au understands there is no record of any other such incidents involving the product in question.

In a statement, Bunnings said it took product safety “very seriously”.

“We take our commitment to product safety and quality very seriously, and we work with our suppliers to ensure that the products we sell are safe, complaint and fit for purpose,” said the company’s Director of Merchandise Jen Tucker.

“This includes working with our suppliers to ensure any instructions included are clear.

“We understand that this matter is before the court, and it would not be appropriate for us to make any further comments while the proceedings are underway.”

She is suing Bunnings for $1.4 million.

Ms Kilsby said since the incident she had been relying on assistance from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

“Since the incident, I have suffered enormously including a serious brain injury,” she said.

“I am grateful to the NDIS for recently accepting my application for some support. It’s early days, however they are currently in the process of choosing the appropriate person to assist me.

“At the end of the day, I can’t buy a new brain. However, I need to find a way to survive and live my life to the best of my ability.”

At the time of the injury, Ms Kilsby was a barista and front of house staff member.

According to the claim, when she returned to work she struggled to recall things, constantly forgot things, mixed up orders and had difficulty learning new skills and understanding instructions.

“By reason of the personal injuries of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has endured and continues to endure, pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life,” the claim states.

It also states Ms Kilsby has been required to undergo medical treatment and will require future medial, hospital, surgical, pharmacological and rehabilitative treatment.

Ms Kilsby’s lawyer, Travis Schultz, Managing Partner at Travis Schultz & Partners, said Australia has some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the world.

Travis Schultz, Managing Partner at Travis Schultz & Partners, is Ms Kilsby’s lawyer. Picture: Supplied

“People who suffer injury as a result of products which have a defect or are not fit for purpose have a range of remedies which include a claim in breach of contract, in negligence, and, perhaps most importantly, a claim for breach of a consumer guarantee which is implied under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL),” Mr Schultz said.

“Under the consumer guarantees, suppliers can be liable for goods which are of unacceptable quality, do not correspond with their description, contain a defect, or are not fit for purpose.

“Even where the manufacturer of the product is overseas, it is the supplier who will be liable so as to ensure that the Australian consumers have a viable remedy where they suffer injury as a result of the defective product.”