What happened
The worker had been employed by Epona at Usinch's abattoir for little more than two weeks when the 2017 accident occurred. Another supplied worker reversed and turned a forklift while lowering an unsecured stillage weighing about 200 kg, which fell onto the plaintiff behind a barrier he understood to mark a safe area. Serious injuries required spinal fusion and left continuing pain and psychiatric injury.
The issues
The Court examined the operator's work system and practical control of the driver, alongside the labour-hire employer's continuing safety obligations. It also considered whether the motor accident damages regime applied to the claim against the employer, contributory negligence and mitigation. The earnings assessment turned on the plaintiff's intermittent work history and his claimed future promotion.
The court's decision
Usinch was vicariously liable for the driver and directly negligent; Epona breached its own duty to the worker. Neither contributory negligence nor failure to mitigate was established, and Epona's contribution was assessed at 30%, with its damages governed by the workers compensation framework. The August judgment left final calculations open; the December sequel entered judgments of AUD 805,081.47 against Usinch and AUD 400,000 against Epona, with satisfaction of either discharging the other to that extent. Costs also changed: Usinch pays the plaintiff's ordinary costs to 15 May 2025, the plaintiff pays Usinch's indemnity costs thereafter, and the plaintiff and Epona bear their own costs.
Understanding the figures
The August decision did not fix a final total. Orders on 17 December 2025 recorded AUD 978,687.82 gross against Usinch, less AUD 173,606.35 under s 151Z(2), producing judgment of AUD 805,081.47; the Epona judgment was AUD 400,000. Deduction of the AUD 159,158.71 workers compensation payback was left for further conference, and the orders expressly prevented double recovery. These are historical AUD judgment figures, not net receipts after payback and costs.
What this case shows
Written forklift procedures did not establish a safe system when they were not implemented. Vicarious liability for the driver and each company's own negligence required separate analysis. Even accepting lost future earning capacity did not establish the claimed uninterrupted career and promotion, so economic loss was assessed through buffers.
Why another case may differ
This was a workplace falling-load injury, and the involvement of a forklift did not place every defendant under the same motor accident regime. The companies' control arrangements and failures to call relevant evidence mattered. The two later judgment sums cannot be added together, and the payback deduction and costs prevent any inference of net cash received.
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? →