Pratap v PPI Corporation Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Pratap v PPI Corporation Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 312
PARTIES:	RAVINDRA PRAKASH PRATAP Plaintiff v PPI CORPORATION PTY LTD Defendant
FILE NO/S:	4353 of 2002
DIVISION:	Civil jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Compensation Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 & 17 August 2004
JUDGE:	P.D ROBIN QC DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for Plaintiff
CATCHWORDS:	PERSONAL INJURY – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – plaintiff injured in course of employment while using a forklift  to return an emptied bag dangling from the tines of the forklift onto a pallet – pallet a cheap “winged” kind – a board (or part thereof) came loose and flew into the plaintiff’s face, injuring him – it appeared the plaintiff (contrary to his denials) had driven the forklift into or onto the pallet and leant his head out of the frame surrounding the forklift driver’s seat – although the evidence overall did not support the plaintiff’s version given in the witness box, it did support his pleaded claims against the defendant in tort, contract and for breach of statutory duty - defendant held liable on all three bases – whether contributory negligence was established or excluded considered - no reduction of agreed damages to be made on this account.
COUNSEL:	Mr G Diehm for the Plaintiff Mr W Campbell for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Stephen & Tozer for the Plaintiff HBM Lawyers for the Defendant

1. The plaintiff sues his employer in respect of personal injuries (a broken jaw and eight damaged teeth, that is, four top and bottom) suffered in a work accident which occurred shortly before midday on 8 November 1999.  The plaintiff alleges that, in the course of his employment, he was driving a forklift at the defendant’s premises, that he was attempting to use the forklift to place a recently emptied bulka bag on to a pallet and that in the course of his attempt a piece of pallet broke away and struck the plaintiff in the face.  The defendant admits those allegations, subject to “attempting” being read as “intending” and denying that the piece of pallet (which admittedly broke away and struck the plaintiff in the face) broke away when the plaintiff was attempting to use the forklift for the purpose described, alleging instead that it happened when the plaintiff drove the forklift on to the pallet before he attempted to place the bulka bag there.

1. The evidence shows the defendant’s business is a successful one, running shifts 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  One of its operations is the extruding of pipes from plastic pellets imported from Korea in 25kg bags or larger “bulka” bags of 500kg, 650kg or a tonne.  The bulka bags are shipped out of Korea on wooden pallets supporting a single bag, or two bags, one on top of the other.  The defendant’s storage system left one bag per pallet.  A few times per day, a forklift was used to carry a full bulka…