What happened
The worker was operating a three-tonne reach forklift in a warehouse in August 2012 when erratic speed changes dislodged him from the seat and the moving vehicle ran over his left leg, ultimately resulting in a below-knee amputation. Six days earlier another operator had experienced similar behaviour in the same forklift, but the essential description was not preserved in the tag-out record or fully conveyed to the maintenance technician.
The issues
The central issue was whether breach and factual causation could be established even though the precise mechanical defect was never identified, given the employer’s prior knowledge of materially similar erratic behaviour. Nestlé also argued that the manufacturer and maintenance contractor, Linde, should bear liability.
The court's decision
The Court dismissed Nestlé’s appeal, the worker’s defensive cross-appeal and Nestlé’s challenge to the dismissal of its cross-claim against Linde. It held that the forklift should have remained out of service until the known erratic behaviour was diagnosed and rectified, and that the communication-system failure supplied the required causal connection.
What this case shows
The decision shows that a plaintiff need not always identify the engineering cause of a malfunction where the defendant already had a specific warning of materially similar dangerous behaviour. In that setting, breach and causation may turn on whether the equipment should have been isolated and the warning accurately recorded and communicated until diagnosis and repair were complete.
Why another case may differ
The appeal concerned liability only; the quantum and trial costs were not independently challenged, so this decision is not a guide to damages assessment. There were judicial reservations about imposing a duty to retrofit a seat restraint, but the separate findings about defect communication and removal from service were sufficient to sustain liability.
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? →