Judges have knocked back the appeal of a former Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre worker who argued his employer was responsible for the injury he suffered while dealing with an inmate.
The man was working at the centre in May 2013 when, during a 'code black' incident, he was directed by the officer in charge to escort an inmate back to his room.
The inmate kicked the worker's knee and ruptured his anterior cruciate ligament, which necessitated surgery.
The worker subsequently sued the Department of Human Services for damages, claiming it was negligent and had breached its statutory duty.
But in 2016 a jury found this was not the case, and the worker was ordered to pay the department's legal costs.
Earlier this year, the man took the matter to the Court of Appeal and argued that the jury's verdicts went against the evidence.
The man alleged the instruction to escort the inmate back to his room was unreasonable, and gave evidence that he asked to sit with the inmate instead, to establish rapport.
Other allegations of negligence included failures on behalf of the department to provide documentation to him or his superior about the inmate's violent propensities, implement a behaviour management plan for the inmate after an earlier incident, implement additional training after that incident, and provide updated safety advice.
The worker also claimed the department breached occupational health and safety laws.
But Justices David Beach, Kim Hargrave and Terence Forrest found the jury, acting reasonably, did not have to find the department negligent.
They ruled that it was open to the jury to find that the inmate's violent inclinations were well-known, even without documentation, and it was reasonable for the officer in charge to order the inmate be escorted to his room.
They said the jury was also entitled to conclude that any procedural failures did not cause the injury.
Justices Beach, Hargrave and Forrest also upheld the jury's verdict in relation to the claim that the department failed its statutory duties.
They determined the jury could reasonably have found that the risk of escorting a violent inmate could not be practically eliminated, and the way in which it was carried out on this occasion - one worker on either arm - was a valid method of reducing risk of injury.
Have you signed up to the Bendigo Advertiser's daily newsletter and breaking news emails? You can register below and make sure you are up to date with everything that's happening in central Victoria.