White v McPhee Transport Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read
CITATION: White v McPhee Transport Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDC 199
HEARING DATE(S): 27, 28 September and 25, 26 October 2006
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

15 November 2006
JURISDICTION: District Court
JUDGMENT OF: Johnstone DCJ at 1
DECISION: Judgment for the plaintiff for $662,090.37; Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs
CATCHWORDS: Negligence - employee injured at work in an accident involving an unregistered forklift - whether the injuries were a result of and caused during the driving of a motor vehicle - whether the award of damages was governed by the Workers Compensation Act 1987 or by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.
LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999: s 3, s 122(1), s 128(3) and s 131
Workers Compensation Act 1987: s 151G
CASES CITED: Foufoulas v F G Strang Pty Ltd 123 CLR 168 at 172
O’Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport 100 CLR 225
Smith v BHP 97 CLR 337 at 342
PARTIES: Michael Thomas White (Plaintiff)
McPhee Transport Pty Ltd (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): 4820/05
COUNSEL: Mr S Hickey (Plaintiff)
Mr C Egan (Defendant)
SOLICITORS: Evan Kontoulas & Associates (Plaintiff)
Abbott Tout (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Mr White was injured at work on 6 August 2002. At the time he was in the back of a semi-trailer, levering a stillage loaded with rolls of material, when the rolls came off the stillage and rolled onto him, crushing him against the floor and wall and other freight in the semi-trailer.

2. It was alleged that the rolls of material were tipped off the stillage onto Mr White by a forklift located at the rear of the semi-trailer, operated by Mr Armstrong Sinni, a fellow employee, when suddenly and without warning, he engaged the stillage with the tynes of the forklift, raising the outer side of the stillage.

3. Mr White alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Mr Sinni, for which his employer, McPhee Transport, is liable (either vicariously as employer, or as statutory principal and owner of the forklift); and by the direct negligence of the employer, in failing to provide safe equipment, a safe place, and a safe system of work. The employer denied liability and alleged contributory negligence by Mr White.

4. The issues for determination as to liability are:


· Was Mr Sinni negligent?


· Was the employer, McPhee Transport, negligent?


· Was Mr White guilty of contributory negligence, and if so, to what extent?

5. The employer also alleged that Mr White’s injuries were not a result of and caused during the driving of its forklift, an unregistered motor vehicle, as required by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, so that any award of damages is not governed by that Act, but by the Workers Compensation Act 1987: s 122(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

6. In the event that the award of damages is governed by the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and not the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, the damages are limited…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read White v McPhee Transport Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2006] NSWDC 199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, White, brought an action against McPhee Transport Pty Ltd, the defendant, seeking damages for injuries sustained during an accident at work. The incident involved an unregistered forklift, and the dispute centred on whether the injuries were the result of and caused during the driving of a motor vehicle. This determination would decide whether the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages was governed by the Workers Compensation Act 1987 or the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

The court had to decide if the injuries were incurred during the driving of a motor vehicle as defined by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. It was necessary to consider the specific circumstances of the accident and the nature of the vehicle involved. The court also had to determine whether the injuries were covered under workers' compensation or if they fell under motor accident compensation. The court had to closely examine the statutory definitions and the applicability of each act.

In its judgment, the court found that the injuries were indeed caused during the driving of a motor vehicle, as the forklift, despite being unregistered, qualified under the statutory definition. Consequently, the court ruled that the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 applied, not the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court awarded damages of $662,090.37 to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff for $662,090.37; Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.