As he was performing his responsibilities in the course of his employment he would be covered by Workers Compensation statutes . Under such statutes the question of Clumsy's contributory or comparative negligence would not be at issue as Workers Compensation laws do not concern themselves with either concept. Such statutes are concerned only with providing coverage for workers injured in the scope of their employment and the worker's part in the accident is of little concern.

In the event, however, that Worker's Compensation laws do not apply, Clumsy's perceived intoxication would have significant bearing on the negligence issue. The wet floor was likely the cause of Clumsy's fall and, absent Clumsy's apparent intoxication, would have provided Clumsy with a basis for recovery. Unfortunately, however, for Clumsy his intoxication will likely serve to diminish, or completely bar, him from recovery. The application of contributory negligence will require a determination as to the degree of culpability between the negligence of allowing water to remain on the working area and Clumsy's intoxication. The level of Clumsy's intoxication will determine whether or not he can prevail on the negligence claim

. The water may have been a contributing factor in his fall but it may be found that his intoxication was a more significant factor and, therefore, Clumsy's right to recovery would be reduced by...

It is possible that such contributory negligence could rise to the level where his recovery would be completely barred. Such determination would be based on the evidence presented and the trier of fact's balancing of the factors.
On the negligence issue, there is no clear determination as to the outcome. Clumsy's employer clearly owed him a duty of care that included providing Clumsy with a safe working environment and that included making sure that the floor was clear of any dangerous conditions. The presence of water would create a dangerous condition and would be actionable, however, Clumsy's intoxication, if provable, would be considered contributory negligence

. A precise determination of the outcome of this case is not possible from the facts available. Whose negligence is more significant must be measured before it can be determined whether Clumsy can recover any damages for his fall.

Contract Law

O" Brien & Anor v. Hillcrown Pty. Ltd. & Anor (2010) QSC 458

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2008) FCA 678.

Luxury Homes Pty. Limited v. Margaret Patricia Lanham (2009) NSWSC.

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).

Joslyn v. Berryman (2003) HCA 34.

Deborah Lee Ezzy v. The United Church in…