What happened

The plaintiff used forklifts to load and unload trucks at the defendant’s chemical premises. He left a forklift running on a sloping driveway and alighted; because the park brake was not fully engaged, it rolled backwards and struck him, ultimately resulting in amputation of his right leg. The defendant’s own procedure required parking on level ground, but that rule had not been properly taught or enforced.

The issues

Although the employer’s failure to stop the sloping-driveway practice was negligent, the central statutory question was whether that fault was merely in the system of work or was also fault in the forklift’s use or operation for ss 3A and 122 of MACA. The court also had to assess the worker’s responsibility for not fully applying the park brake.

The court's decision

The court held that the uncontrolled rolling forklift was a motor accident and that failing to instruct the worker where and how it could safely be parked was fault in the vehicle’s use or operation, even though it was also a system-of-work failure. The worker’s failure to ensure the brake was fully engaged warranted a 20% reduction, but the employer’s permitted practice was substantially more culpable.

Understanding the figures

The parties agreed historical gross damages of AUD 3,700,000. After reducing that sum by 20% for contributory negligence, the court entered judgment for AUD 2,960,000 and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

What this case shows

The case demonstrates that a workplace injury can still fall within the former motor-accident damages regime where the proved fault is sufficiently connected with the vehicle’s actual use or operation. A system-of-work characterisation is not necessarily exclusive: the same omission may also be fault in vehicle use when it governs how and where the vehicle is operated.

Why another case may differ

This was a 2012 accident governed by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) as applicable to that accident and its historical interaction with workers-compensation damages. It does not make every forklift or workplace-vehicle injury a motor claim; the precise connection between the proved fault and vehicle use, and the legislation in force on the accident date, remain decisive.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →