Metri v Nestlé Australia Ltd

er (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42 Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121; [2000] HCA 18 TNT Australia Pty Limited v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCA 47 Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 50 ALJR 720 Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375; [2013] HCA 19 Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485; [1995] HCA 53 Texts Cited: Australian Standard, AS 2359 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Toufic Metri (Plaintiff) Nestlé Australia Ltd (First Defendant / Cross-claimant) Linde Material Handling Pty Limited (Second Defendant / Cross-defendant) Representation: Counsel: M Cranitch SC / T Hickey (Plaintiff) G Parker SC / D O'Dowd (First Defendant / Cross-claimant) M McCulloch SC / T Berberian (Second Defendant / Cross-defendant)

Solicitors: Beilby Poulden Costello (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (First Defendant / Cross-claimant) Moray & Agnew (Second Defendant / Cross-defendant) File Number(s): 2015/82320

Introduction

1. Toufic Metri (the plaintiff) claims damages for injuries he sustained as a result of a forklift accident, the most serious of which involved damage to his left lower limb which led to its amputation below the knee. He alleges that his injuries were caused by the negligence of his employer, Nestlé Australia Ltd (Nestlé), the first defendant, and/or Linde Material Handling Pty Limited (Linde), the manufacturer and repairer of the forklift, the second defendant.
2. The plaintiff's accident occurred on 16 August 2012. He commenced proceedings under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) by filing a statement of claim on 18 March 2015 which named Nestlé as the sole defendant. On 18 April 2016, Nestlé, which denied liability to the plaintiff, filed a cross-claim against Linde, alleging, relevantly, that Linde's negligence had caused the accident.
3. The plaintiff's case, as ultimately pressed, was as follows. Nestlé was negligent in failing to ensure that forklift 432 was taken out of service unless and until the defect identified in forklift 432 by Jason Connell, another forklift driver, on 10 August 2012 (six days before the plaintiff's accident) had been identified and remedied. Alternatively, the plaintiff submitted that Nestlé was negligent in failing to provide a forklift which was appropriately designed or fitted (with either guards, a seatbelt or contouring to the seat) to reduce the prospect of a driver becoming dislodged from the seat in the event of a sudden change of movement by the forklift. The plaintiff further alleged that Nestlé had failed to adequately maintain its forklifts.
4. By further amended statement of claim filed on 12 June 2019 the plaintiff added Linde as a second defendant. The plaintiff alleged that Linde was negligent in failing to repair forklift 432. Linde denies negligence and further alleges that the plaintiff's claim is not maintainable by reason of s 50C of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).
5. Mr Cranitch SC, appeared on behalf of the plaintiff with Mr (Ty) Hickey (not to be confused with John Hickey, an expert retained by Nestlé). Mr Parker SC appeared with Mr O'Dowd for Nestlé. Mr McCulloch SC appeared with Ms Berberian for Linde.

The plaintiff's background

1. The plaintiff was born in Lebanon in 1968. He completed school at the age of 18, to the equivalent of Year 12, at the Akkar High School. He was fluent in French and Arabic. He migrated to Australia at the age of 20.

The plaintiff's employment at Franklins

1. Upon his arrival in Australia, the plaintiff completed a six-week full-time intensive English course before commencing work as a licensed forklift driver at Franklins' site at Chullora. The plaintiff worked full-time for Franklins from 1989 until he was made redundant in August 1998. The forklifts he drove there were manufactured by Linde and were the same forklifts as those he subsequently drove when employed by Nestlé.
2. In about 1994, the plaintiff injured his neck and back in the course of his duties at Franklins. He made a workers compensation claim but did not take time off work and recovered completely. He had been very reluctant to take time off work for the injuries as he did not want to jeopardise his regular overtime on Saturdays and Sundays. The overtime pay made a significant difference to his weekly earnings and his capacity to support his wife, Georgette, whom he married in 1992, and with whom he had four children: Samara (born 1993), Matthew (born 1994), Joelle (born 2000) and Martin (born 2001).
3. Between being made redundant from Franklins in August 1998 and obtaining full-time employment with Nestlé in April 1999, the plaintiff worked as a forklift driver for a Mexican food company in Rooty Hill and, subsequently, for Beacon Lighting in Auburn. For the first four months of his employment with Nestlé, the plaintiff continued to work at Beacon Lighting but, ultimately, found that it was too demanding and resigned from his position at Beacon Lighting to dedicate himself to his employment with Nestlé. He worked at Nestlé's Arndell Park site. All references to Nestlé's premises in these reasons are references to the premises at Arndell Park.

Persons involved (directly or indirectly) in the events surrounding the plaintiff's accident or in giving opinions on matters associated with it

1. In order to understand the roles of various witnesses and others referred to in the evidence it is necessary to give some background.

David Hix

1. David Hix was the director of the Australiana section of Nestlé. The Head of Physical Logistics reported to him.

David Neighbour

1. David Neighbour was appointed to the position of the Northern Distribution Centre Manager in 2011. His role was to oversee the operation and management of the physical operations and ensure that day-to-day activities were undertaken at the Arndell Park premises. His role in relation to the reach forklifts was to ensure that they were used and maintained in a safe manner. He reported to the Head of Physical Logistics.
2. In 2012, Carol Lacy was the operations manager. She reported to Mr Neighbour. The shift managers reported to her.

Brett Lloyd

1. In 2012, the relevant line manager was Brett Lloyd, who had been employed by Nestlé since 2004, originally as a forklift driver. He was subsequently promoted to shift supervisor and line manager. As line manager, Mr Lloyd was responsible for all the labour on the floor, including ensuring that there were sufficient workers to get through the workload. He was responsible for 23 permanent staff and 6 casual staff who each reported directly to him. Mr Lloyd was the plaintiff's direct supervisor for about a year before the accident. Mr Lloyd left the Arndell Park site in late 2012 or early 2013.

The plaintiff

1. The plaintiff was a forklift driver, who also worked as a picker. He usually worked inside the warehouse on reach forklifts but, from time to time, he was called upon to drive a counterbalance forklift outside.
2. When the plaintiff began working for Nestlé in 1999 he was rostered on night shifts. In 2003 he changed to the afternoon shift. In about 2009 he worked for a short period on the day shift but from about 2010 he worked on the afternoon shift.
3. On average, the plaintiff worked overtime between two and three days a week. He worked more overtime than any of his peers. He tended to be offered overtime because he was known to be willing and was regarded as an experienced forklift driver who was good at his job. Mr Lloyd described the plaintiff as a "motivated person" and said that he "never had any issues with [the plaintiff's] work performance."
4. The plaintiff was a member of the National Union of Workers (the Union) committee within Nestlé. He was also a member of Nestlé's Occupational Health and Safety Committee (OH&S Committee).
5. The plaintiff had never been involved in a forklift accident prior to 16 August 2012.

Jason Connell

1. Mr Connell was an experienced forklift driver who had worked at Nestlé's Arndell Park site since 2003. He usually worked on the day shift (from 7.10am until 3.10pm). Forklift 432 was his regular forklift. On 16 August 2012 he was working as a picker and therefore did not drive forklift 432 on that day. Although Mr Connell's statement was filed by Nestlé, he was called as a witness in the plaintiff's case. He was not cross-examined by Mr Parker, although he was cross-examined by Mr McCulloch.

Other persons employed by Nestlé who are referred to in the evidence

1. In 2012, Troy Tabone was the facilities manager at Nestlé's Arndell Park site. Paul Walters and Hien Nguyen were forklift drivers who were working at the time of the plaintiff's accident, not far from where it occurred. Tony Bilby was a shift supervisor.
2. Michelle Balewai worked in Nestlé's Occupational Health and Safety area and came to the scene of the accident soon after the plaintiff fell from the forklift. She also visited the plaintiff in hospital and spoke to Samara, the plaintiff's eldest daughter.
3. Mark Massoud, an employee of Nestlé who worked at its site at Rhodes, was called in by Nestlé to assist Ms Balewai in the investigation of the plaintiff's accident.

Jon Gorman

1. In 2012, Jon Gorman was the Technical Support and National Training Manager for Linde. Mr Gorman was qualified as a fitter and turner machinist and had over 40 years of experience working with Linde. He was neither an engineer nor a computer expert, nor did he have qualifications in information technology.

Carlos Raad

1. Carlos Raad was a forklift technician. He completed the Technical Baccalaureate in mechanical engineering and qualified as a motor mechanic in Lebanon before migrating to Australia as a skilled migrant in 2004.
2. Mr Raad was employed by Linde as a technician in about January 2006. As at August 2012, his van was fitted with a fixed terminal which set out the job to be done. As he was often working away from his van, he would generally receive an SMS or a call, informing him of a particular job and the location of the machine to be repaired or serviced and he would make his way to the job.
3. Mr Raad was the technician to whom Linde allocated the job of repairing forklift 432 on 13 August 2012.

Georgette Metri

1. The plaintiff's wife, Georgette, gave evidence about the effect of the accident on the plaintiff and on family life, as well as the care she has provided to the plaintiff and the division of household tasks between them before and after the accident.

Samara Metri

1. The plaintiff's eldest daughter, Samara, gave evidence and was cross-examined about retaining Mark Nelson as the solicitor for her father, filling in the claim form for damages under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act, and the care she has provided to her father, as well as the effect of the accident on her father and on family life.

Matri Metri

1. Matri, the elder of the plaintiff's two sons, also gave evidence about the effect of the accident on his father and the care he has provided to his father. He was not cross-examined.

Expert witnesses

1. John Hickey, a qualified mechanical engineer, was an independent expert retained by Nestlé to investigate the plaintiff's accident. He was called by Nestlé to give evidence in the proceedings. Grant Johnston and Roger Lewis, who were both qualified mechanical engineers, were called by the plaintiff. Dr Tim White, who was also a qualified mechanical engineer, was called by Linde.

Types of forklift, their mode of operation and their repair and maintenance

The two main types of forklift

1. Before turning to the plaintiff's employment at Nestlé, it is necessary to make findings about the environment in which he worked and the forklifts which he operated.
2. Forklifts, which are also referred to as "forks" or "trucks" fall into two categories. "Counterbalance forklifts" are powered by diesel, have rubber tyres and are operated outdoors. "Reach forklifts" are designed to operate indoors, typically in warehouses and factories, and are powered by an electric battery. Reach forklifts tend to travel at much slower speeds than counterbalance forklifts and may have in-built restrictions to limit their maximum speed.
3. Nestlé used counterbalance forklifts for outside work and to load and unload trucks in the loading dock. It used reach forklifts for movements within its warehouse. There were 16 reach forklifts in operation in the period leading up to 16 August 2012. Nestlé's warehouse covered an area of 10-acres and had an internal capacity for about 42,000 pallets on racks and 17,000 in the refrigerated compartments. The warehouse had a concrete floor. There were spaces between the concrete slabs to allow for expansion and contraction at the joints.

The provenance of forklift 432

1. These proceedings concern the operation of reach forklift 432. Forklift 432 was one of a number of similar forklifts manufactured by Linde which were initially leased by Nestlé in 2003 for use in its Arndell Park premises.
2. When the leases for the (reach) forklifts expired, Nestlé purchased the forklifts. Nestlé purchased forklift 432 from Linde in October 2010. As at 2008, Nestlé intended to replace these forklifts with a newer model which was fitted with seatbelts but this did not eventuate and forklift 432 and its counterparts continued to be used at Nestlé's premises until, relevantly, 16 August 2012. As at 13 August 2012 (according to Linde's service records), forklift 432 had travelled 17,878km. The characteristics of reach forklifts described below apply to the batch of forklifts used by Nestlé, which included forklift 432.

The operation of the forklift

1. The forklifts were operated by a Linde Digital Computer (LDC), which functioned as the "brains" of the forklift. The LDC controlled, through software programming, the supply of power to the motor, and therefore the speed. It also produced "fault codes" to indicate faults that were detected in the forklift. Such "fault codes" were stored and could be retrieved by plugging into the forklift a laptop loaded with a program known as the "Truck Doctor". Certain fault codes, when activated, would have the effect of putting the forklift into "turtle mode" (also known as "creep mode"), which would limit its speed to 2.5km/h. When a forklift goes into turtle mode, it slows down gradually.
2. Other fault codes cause the forklift to shut down immediately. When a forklift has gone into either of these modes, the minimum requirement to get the forklift to restart is to switch off the forklift with the key switch, release the park brake and operate the traction pedals (the left or right pedal).
3. There were three types of fault codes which the Truck Doctor recognised: power module fault codes; LDC module fault codes; and reach sensor fault codes. As at 2012, the Truck Doctor for these forklifts stored, without reference to date or time, the fault codes logged during the life of each forklift.

The configuration of the forklift

1. The forklifts had a high cabin in which the operator sat facing sideways to the direction of travel. The driver's left side faced the rear of the forklift and the right side faced the tines at the front of the forklift. The drivers would typically drive loaded forklifts from the right to the left as the loaded tines were on the right side and blocked the driver's view towards the right. The driver got in and out of the forklift through the opening to the driver's left. The training received by the plaintiff and Mr Connell was that a driver should not get out of the forklift while it was still moving because of the associated dangers.
2. There was an instrument panel on the console next to the steering wheel, with various indicators, including the level of charge in the battery, which would be shown by the number of bars illuminated. There was no speedometer on the instrument panel.
3. The forklifts were not fitted with either seatbelts or railings to keep the driver inside the cabin. There was some contouring at either side of the back of the seat at the level of the hip, which Mr Hickey described in his evidence as "insubstantial." The seat, which was constructed of vinyl, was relatively flat and uncontoured. It could be adjusted to suit the height of the driver.

The power which operated the forklift

1. The forklifts were powered by a battery, which weighed in the order of a tonne and sat beside the driver. Although a new battery would last for about 12 hours, older batteries, such as the one in forklift 432 would retain charge for as little as 6 hours. The age of the forklift also tended to compromise the efficiency of the battery charge. A crane or hoist was required to change the battery. The battery of a forklift which is in constant use needs to be changed every shift. If the battery charge drops to 20%, the battery automatically goes into turtle mode (see below).
2. The connection between the battery and the power module of the forklift is governed by a battery-locking sensor, which is located behind the battery wall of the forklift and operates like a switch. If the battery-locking sensor was not locked in place or became disengaged, the forklift was designed to go into turtle mode (limited to 2.5km/h), which was sufficient to drive the machine at a safe speed to the tag-out area within the warehouse for any necessary repair.
3. Typically, a battery-locking sensor can disengage if the forklift is being driven over rough and uneven floors or has a minor collision. Movement of the battery pack can cause intermittent changes in the speed of the forklift (without any action on the part of the forklift driver) because of the intermittent delivery of power by reason of the battery sensor not being fully and consistently engaged. Disengagement can also occur when a new battery is put in and the alignment is imperfect. If the battery sensor becomes disconnected from the battery, the forklift will shut down. Once the battery sensor re-engages, the forklift will, when either the left or right pedal is pressed by the driver, accelerate to its usual speed.

Wheels

1. The forklifts had three wheels, two under the tines of the fork and one under the driver's cabin. The wheels were constructed of polyurethane, were solid, hard and had no tread as they were designed to operate in dry conditions within the warehouse.

The pedals, means of propulsion and the brakes

1. There were three pedals on the floor of the forklift which were operated by the driver's feet. The left pedal operated as an accelerator and, when pressed, would propel the forklift in the direction away from the tines. The right pedal, also an accelerator, would propel the forklift in the direction of the tines. The central pedal was a foot brake, which operated hydraulically.
2. There were various methods of causing a forklift to slow down or come to a stop. First, the driver could release the pedal which corresponded to the direction of travel. This method, known as "regenerative braking", operates by depriving the forklift of forward power and causes it to slow to a stop. Secondly, the driver could apply pressure to the central pedal to operate the hydraulic brake. This method was regarded as the fastest means of braking. Thirdly, the driver could apply pressure to the opposite pedal to create a countervailing force, which would also cause the forklift to slow and stop. This method was referred to as "reverse current braking". Fourthly, the driver could apply the emergency brake, or parking brake, which was on the console of the forklift. Fifthly, there was also a "dead man's brake" which operated automatically when the driver's weight was no longer on the seat of the forklift.
3. The plaintiff was familiar with, and used, all methods of braking, other than the reverse current braking, which he regarded as both dangerous to others who might be in the vicinity and inconsistent with his training. Mr Connell confirmed his experience that a driver could make a forklift slow down more quickly by pressing the opposite pedal, which acted as a "sort of brake".

The speed of the forklift

1. The maximum speed which the forklifts were capable of travelling was a significant issue in the proceedings. As there was no instrument panel on the forklifts, the driver's estimate of the maximum speed, or a given speed, could only be a matter of impression. It was common ground that the LDC for forklifts such as forklift 432 set the nominal maximum speed of the forklift at 12.5km/h. I accept the evidence of Mr Raad, an experienced employee of Linde who regularly repaired such forklifts for Nestlé, that these forklifts would probably not have been able to reach their maximum speed of 12.5km/h in 2012 because of their age.
2. It was possible to reduce the initial maximum speed set by the manufacturer. However, any change in the maximum speed could be done only by plugging the Truck Doctor laptop into the forklift when the forklift was switched off. The plaintiff's belief that a lower setting had been put in for safety reasons was, at least partly, corroborated by Nestlé's documents which prescribed a speed limit of 10km/h within the warehouse.
3. Despite the apparent importance of the speed of the forklift in the proceedings, no tests capable of determining the speed with any precision were conducted. Dr White, the expert engineer retained by Linde, endeavoured to measure the speed of the forklift by mounting a camera to its frame and measuring the time taken to travel the distance of 1m between cones. This measurement was performed to assess the likelihood of the braking systems of a forklift being sufficient to generate a g-force which would dislodge the driver from a forklift. He accepted that the results were "noisy" (that is, the variability between results was substantial) because of the vibration level in the forklift, which increased with the speed of the forklift. It follows that there is no reliable evidence to determine the maximum speed of which forklift 432 was capable on 16 August 2012.
4. The plaintiff described the top speed of the reach forklifts at Arndell Park as a "brisk walking pace" and said that, until 16 August 2012, he had never seen a reach forklift go faster than such a pace. According to the plaintiff, reach forklifts are "usually very slow to move from a stationary position to the usual maximum speed (brisk walking pace)." He made no distinction between particular reach forklifts in this respect and said that each behaved in a similar way as far as speed was concerned. It was common ground that 12.5km/h was significantly greater than "brisk walking pace" and that a brisk walking pace would be in the order of 6-7km/h. Mr Connell, who usually drove forklift 432 on the day shift, estimated its usual speed to be about 10km/h.

The shift system at Nestlé

1. The drivers of reach forklifts at Nestlé's premises at Arndell Park worked in three shifts. The day shift ran from 7.10am to 3.10pm. The afternoon shift ran from 3.10pm until 11.10pm and the night shift began at 11.10pm and ended at 7.10am. If a worker was rostered on for a particular shift but was unable to perform that shift, Nestlé would arrange for a person from the previous shift to cover the first four hours of the shift and a person from the subsequent shift to cover the last four hours of the shift.
2. The forklifts were generally in operation 24 hours a day. Each worker would generally use the same forklift when working his or her regular shift. However, if a worker was required to work a different shift, or required to work overtime on another shift, the worker would usually have to work on a forklift other than the one usually allocated to him or her.
3. Drivers of reach forklifts who were employed by Nestlé at the Arndell Park premises were required, at the commencement of the shift, to report to the supervisor's office to be allocated work for the shift. The parking area for the reach forklifts was in front of this office. If a driver was working a shift for which he or she was usually rostered, the driver would use the forklift which he or she generally used. However, if a driver was working on another shift or if the driver's usual forklift was unserviceable, the driver would be allocated another forklift at the commencement of the shift.
4. Before commencing allocated tasks, forklift drivers were required to complete a pre-operation checklist in relation to the particular forklift, the identification number of which was required to be included by the driver at the top of the form (for example, forklift "432"), together with the driver's name, the date and the shift (day, afternoon or night). The items on the checklist included "lights working", "horn working", "tyre condition", "battery charged", "seat - adjustable/not worn" and "hydraulic system - leaks/hoses". The driver was to tick one of two alternatives, either "Good" or "Needs work".
5. In order to perform the check, the plaintiff's usual practice was to sit on the forklift, turn it on, release the parking brake (which was operated by a switch on the console) and move it a short distance forwards (by applying his right foot to the right pedal) and backwards (by applying his left foot to the left pedal) to make sure that it was operating normally. His usual practice for checking the item, "hydraulic system - leaks/hoses" was to check the ground beneath the hydraulic system and the hoses which travel down the mast of the forklift. If there was no leak on the ground below the mast, the plaintiff would indicate on the checklist that the condition of this item was "good". As part of his pre-operation check of the forklift, the plaintiff would also check the battery charge, as indicated on the instrument panel on the console, to make sure that the forklift was either fully charged or sufficiently charged to last the shift.

Assessments of the risks posed by the forklifts and procedures for the operation of the forklifts

Nestlé's 2008 Risk Assessment

1. From time to time, Nestlé conducted assessments of the risks posed to its employees by the use and operation of the forklifts at Arndell Park. One such assessment resulted in the production of a document dated 9 May 2008, which identified particular hazards, risks and controls relating to particular activities or equipment (the 2008 Risk Assessment). It contained a table which set out particular risks, the rating for each risk, the measure that would be effective to control the risk and the rating of the residual risk (after the control had been implemented). The risks were rated by a number in a table which reflected the likelihood of the risk ensuing and the most likely consequence of the risk. The various possibilities for the "most likely consequence" were (from most serious to least serious): "disastrous", "critical", "serious", "moderate" or "minor". The various possibilities for "likelihood" ranged from "almost certainly will occur" to "extremely unlikely to occur".
2. Nestlé reviewed the 2008 Risk Assessment from time to time, including in 2010 and in 2012. The dates of its review are not material for present purposes since the following entry was in the original version published in 2008 and remained in future iterations revealed by the evidence: Hazard Risk Risk Rating Controls Residual Risk Not using seatbelt whilst operating forklift Operator may fall out of forklift in the event of an incident/collision. Injury/fatality. 14 Tool box chat reminders to wear seatbelts. Monitor through BBS program. New forklifts 2009/2010 to have preventative seatbelt device in it. 6

1. A risk rating of 14 was associated with an event which was unlikely to occur (more than once in 3 years but less than once a year) but for which the most likely consequence is "critical". By contrast, a risk rating of 6 was associated with an event which was extremely unlikely to occur (occurrence has not occurred and is expected to occur less than once in 3 years) and for which the most likely consequence is "serious".
2. Although at the time the 2008 Risk Assessment was produced, Nestlé intended to replace its forklifts in 2009/2010 with forklifts which would be fitted with seatbelts, this did not eventuate. From April 2012, Nestlé was considering moving its premises from Arndell Park because of a change in volume of the product being moved through the distribution centre, which would have led to replacement of the forklifts prior to the plaintiff's accident. It deferred replacement of the forklifts pending a decision on relocation.
3. Notwithstanding the proposals for their replacement, the forklifts, which had been in use since 2003 and which did not have seatbelts, continued to be used. None was fitted with a seatbelt or other restraining device at the time of the plaintiff's accident. Mr Neighbour was unable to explain why seatbelts were not fitted to the existing forklifts when their replacement was deferred, apparently indefinitely. He said that if he had been in his current position at the time the decision not to replace the forklift fleet had been made, he would have engaged Linde to ascertain whether it was feasible to have seatbelts fitted to the existing forklifts. Mr Neighbour did not consider cost to be an issue because of the value which he understood Nestlé placed on safety.

Linde's risk assessment dated 24 August 2008

1. In 2008, Linde undertook a risk assessment of its reach forklifts, including those of the same model as forklift 432. It produced a risk assessment dated 24 August 2008, which was tendered in the plaintiff's case. It identified risks within a table, which included the following: Brief Description of Hazard/Risk Brief Description of Recommended Risk Reduction Measure(s) … … Excessive speed and hard braking also has the potential to result in the operator being thrown forward in the cabin, impacting, for example, the mast or overhead guard. This could result in serious injury. The risk of this incident was assessed to be significant. To reduce this risk, it is recommended that Linde conduct a site assessment and recommend specific risk reduction measures related to the specific site. This may include speed limiting and operational procedures as well as specific training. This risk reduction measures were considered to reduce the risks to the moderate level and in the ALARP range. Four of the assessed high risk incidents involved vehicle tip-over resulting in the potential for the operator to fall or jump from the cabin. In this incident there is also a potential for the truck to land on the operator resulting in a fatality. The four incidents identified to result in truck tip-over are:

• operating the vehicle at excessive speed, particularly when cornering (this may cause the load to shift and the balance move outside the stability triangle, resulting in potential truck tip over). Procedures and training are critical in managing this risk. Statistically, truck tips and falls away from the operator, this would be included in the training. No seatbelts are fitted to this truck hence the operator can jump from the truck and be impacted. The operator must be trained to stay with the truck and hold on (e.g. MTI low probability). This would maintain the risk within the ALARP range.

1. Linde also included other hazards which it rated, including the tipping over of the forklift with the consequence that "the driver jumps from the cabin and is struck by the overhead guard resulting in a fatality". The required risk reduction measures for this risk were said to be as follows: "Procedures and training are critical in managing this risk. Statistically, truck tips and falls away from the operator, this would be included in the training. No seatbelts are fitting to this truck hence the operator can jump from the truck and be impacted. The operator must be trained to stay with the truck and hold on (e.g. MTI [Medically Treated Injury] low probability) and in the ALARP [as low as reasonably practical] range."
2. Linde also identified as a hazardous incident, "lack of truck control whilst braking", which was relevantly caused by "travel at speed with load". One of the consequences was said to be "operator thrown forward & impact the cabin (LTI [Lost Time Injury])". The safeguards proposed were: site assessment, procedures, training, speed limits, regenerative brakes (controlled deceleration) and bump stops on truck. The required risk reduction measures were said to be: "Site assessment will determine the maximum recommended speed limit for specified operation. Linde need to discuss this requirement with the client. Operation of the vehicle in accordance with Linde recommendations will reduce the risk to ALARP range".

Nestlé's procedures for safe forklift operation

1. On 30 September 2009, Nestlé produced and published a document entitled "NDC [Northern Distribution Centre] Forklift Procedure, Safe Forklift Operation". The procedure, which was relevantly updated on 30 September 2011, covered both counterbalance forklifts and reach forklifts, although these were separately identified and defined in the document.
2. The procedure which was addressed to operators of forklifts included the following: "… ● Always wear seatbelts (where fitted) … ● Every forklift operator will operate with due caution while travelling throughout the warehouse and racking, being particularly aware of pedestrian movements, giving way where necessary. ● DO NOT SPEED - especially in areas where there are pedestrians (less than 10km/h). ● … ● Every forklift operator will ensure the forklift has come to a complete stop, the handbrake is applied and the tynes are down before disembarking the forklift. ● … ● DO NOT JUMP OUT IF YOUR FORKLIFT IS OVERTURNING. … 6.1 Site Rules of operating a Forklift Truck at Arndell Park DC … ● 10[km/h] speed limits apply within the warehouse … ● Forklifts with a lock out or out of service tag placed on them, must not be used or operated. … ● All operators are to drive smoothly, refraining from excessively rapid acceleration and quick stops. ● While operating a forklift truck all body parts 'limbs' must be confined to the forklift truck cabin. Feet and arms shall not hang over side of forklift. … ● All operators are never to operate a forklift recklessly or at an unsafe speed. … ● Forklift operators to look out for pedestrians and obey the 3 meter rule where practical. … 6.1 Parking, Mounting and Dismounting the forklift unit … ● Forklift operators are not to exiting [sic] the forklift until it completely stops. …"
3. Section 6.5 of the procedure made provision for the tag-out/lock out procedure and provided that the tag-out procedure was to be used when authorised by a supervisor and that the tag-out book was required to be completed. The mechanic was to notify the shift supervisor when the repairs had been carried out. Only the repairing mechanic or the shift supervisor or "persons in authority" were entitled to remove a tag. Such a person would have to sign the book after the repair was completed.

The tag-out procedure in operation

1. If a fault was detected in a forklift, the usual practice was for the operator to apply a tag to the machine so that it could not be used until the fault was rectified. On occasions, the forklift would also be "locked out" to prevent its use. The details of forklifts which had been tagged or locked out would be entered in a spiral notebook which was kept in a locked cabinet in the office where the forklift drivers would enter to obtain their work allocation for each shift. Each page had a printed grid with columns labelled as follows: Date Item tagged out Reason Informed supervisor Y/N Lock or Tag Lock # Name Signature Tag Removed Sign + Date

1. The final column was required to be completed by a Nestlé employee.
2. In addition to tagging out the forklift, its driver would generally have a conversation with the shift supervisor to elaborate on the issue which had caused the driver to tag the machine out, thereby conveying information beyond that which was recorded in the tag-out book.
3. Tagged or locked out machines would be repaired or serviced by mechanics employed by Linde and then, when repaired, would be returned to service. According to Mr Neighbour and Mr Lloyd, the supervisor would be expected to speak to the Linde technician to provide greater detail of the particular nature of the fault identified by the forklift operator. There does not appear to have been any formal procedure or mechanism for this to occur. The evidence does not suggest that the technician was privy to the contents of the tag-out book and the Linde service history document recorded only a brief description of the issue with the forklift.
4. Mr Raad said in his evidentiary statement that he usually spoke to "a supervisor at Nestlé" before working on any of the forklifts. He identified the persons to whom he spoke as being either Tony (which I take to be a reference to Mr Bilby) or, if he was not available, Troy (which I take to be a reference to Mr Tabone). He said that he would not usually have spoken to Mr Lloyd about technical issues relating to a forklift as Mr Lloyd was "operational in the warehouse" and, as far as Mr Raad was concerned, "not looking after the forklifts".
5. Mr Neighbour also said that if the Linde technician needed further clarification of the issue, the technician would discuss this with the forklift operator directly.

Safety meetings conducted by Nestlé to monitor risks

1. Nestlé would conduct staff safety meetings (referred to as "SHE" meetings) at which any incident was raised and running totals were recorded of Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIR) and Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (RIFR). The minutes of a meeting on 14 June 2011 recorded that on 11 April 2011 the "Lock Out Tag Out" issue was raised. The following "action required" was specified: "Who is authorised? Qualified personnel>Supervisor>Tag Issuer. Need a Tag Out Register (MB [Michelle Balewai])".
2. Ms Balewai was identified as the "person responsible". The issue was raised again on 18 June 2012 at a safety meeting which was chaired by Mr Connell. The notation said: "log book not being completed".
3. The person responsible was said to be "ALL", which I take to be a reference to all employees. The issue was raised again at the SHE meeting on 16 July 2012, for which the plaintiff is recorded as having given his apologies. The "action required" was said to be: "Re-communicate process to all staff as a safety chat. Process not being followed and log book not being completed."
4. Once again, the person responsible was said to be "ALL".
5. On 20 August 2012 (four days after the plaintiff's accident), the "Lock out Tag out" topic remained on the agenda. On this occasion the "action required" was recorded as: "Recommunicate process to all shifts as a Safety Chat. Process not being followed and log book not being completed - September update - process reviewed - additions done to be submitted for approval by [SHE] committee - full trace from fault to repair."
6. The SHE committee's conclusion that the process was not being followed was supported by the fact that, of the 24 tag-out events in the extracts from the tag-out book in evidence, only 5 had the final column completed (to indicate the date and signature of removal of the tag), a ratio of 21%.

The arrangement between Nestlé and Linde for maintenance of forklifts

1. Up until 2008 and from 2010 onwards, Nestlé contracted with Linde for the service and maintenance of its forklifts at its Arndell Park site. As at the time of the plaintiff's accident, the terms of the maintenance agreement, which was in writing and dated 17 November 2011, were relevantly as follows: "Preventative Maintenance Preventative Maintenance (PM) will be affected in accordance with the servicing schedule contained in the Operator's Manual for all the equipment listed in schedule 1 or annually. The cost as detailed in schedule 1 will cover the Labour, travel, parts and sundries items to carry out the PM Service. Appropriate authorisation will be obtained from the customer prior to any additional work commencing as a result of the PM Service. Machines must be made available during normal working hours at a time convenient to you at the scheduled intervals for servicing. Work cover requires all vehicles to be maintained by a registered forklift mechanic on a minimum of annual basis. Hours of work Normal working hours will be 7.30am to 4.30pm Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. Labour An experienced service technician, having a detailed knowledge of the equipment will be provided as required. Wherever possible a dedicated technician will be appointed however, an alternate technician may attend breakdowns to improve response time. Traction Batteries Daily maintenance (including checking the electrolyte level) of Traction Batteries is the responsibility of the customer. …"
2. When Linde performed work on a forklift, the technician would return the forklift to one of the shift managers or superiors, who would sign a document to indicate that the work had been done. This would provide the mechanism for Linde to issue an invoice for the work.
3. According to Mr Neighbour, no one from Linde had ever advised Nestlé that seatbelts or restraints ought be installed on the reach forklifts.

The performance of forklift 432 prior to 16 August 2012

Maintenance issues prior to August 2012

1. In February 2012, Mr Connell noticed that forklift 432 was going slowly. He approached the Linde mechanic who happened to be on site. As far as Mr Connell could tell, the mechanic rectified the problem, which meant that the forklift did not have to be tagged out.
2. According to the Linde Service History Listing, on 1 March 2012, forklift 432 was put in for service with the history, "no traction book light flashing". The follow-up note recorded by Linde said: "DIAGNOSE TRUCK, FOUND LDC POWER MODULE PLAYING UP OCCASIONALLY RESULTING IN TRUCK COMPLETE SHUT DOWN AND BOOK LIGHT FLASHING. EXPLAIN FAULT TO CUSTOMER, ORGANISE QUOTATION ON REPLACING MODULE. CUSTOMER NOT PROCEEDING WITH THIS JOB 7.7.12 SINCE FAULT HAPPENS VERY RARELY DUE TO COST."
3. On 29 May 2012, Mr Connell noticed that forklift 432 did not remain stationary when neither the left nor the right pedal was depressed. Consequently, he tagged it out. It was subsequently repaired and returned to service.

Mr Connell's evidence of what occurred on 10 August 2012

1. On 10 August 2012, Mr Connell worked the day shift and, as usual, was allocated forklift 432. He was driving it down an aisle and had his left foot on the accelerator pedal to cause it to travel in the direction away from the tines. His foot depressed the pedal to its lowest (maximum) position on the floor. Suddenly the forklift sped up "more than it usually does". Without warning, the forklift decelerated, as if a handbrake had been applied, although Mr Connell had done nothing to make this happen. As there was no actual handbrake on these vehicles (although there was a park brake), I infer that he was endeavouring to convey the sensation he experienced when the forklift suddenly decelerated which, in his experience, was unprecedented.
2. The suddenness of the change in motion was almost sufficient to cause Mr Connell to be thrown off the forklift. Thereafter, the forklift returned to its normal cruising speed (which Mr Connell estimated to be in the order of 10km/h). He immediately stopped the forklift and drove it slowly back to the forklift parking area and tagged it out for repair.
3. In the tag-out book referred to above, Mr Connell recorded as follows: Date Item tagged out Reason Informed supervisor Y/N Lock or Tag Lock # Name Signature Tag Removed Sign + Date 10/8 432 432 SPEED SENSOR ISSUE Y Tag Jason Connell [signed] [blank]

1. Once he had tagged out forklift 432, Mr Connell said to Mr Lloyd, who was on duty at the time: "… this machine has a problem. When I was driving it I was heading with my left foot on the pedal just cruising along when all of a sudden the machine sped up. It started going much faster than normal which startled me. Then all of a sudden the brakes came on and pulsed which threw me to the side a little before they quickly released. The machine then kept on cruising at its normal speed. I decided to bring it straight back here and tag it out."
2. In cross-examination, Mr Connell explained that when he said that the brakes "pulsed", he felt that the brake appeared to activate itself without the brake pedal having been touched by him. Mr Connell was an experienced forklift operator who presented as a reliable witness. I accept his description of what occurred on 10 August 2012, including what he told Mr Lloyd.
3. As there is an issue about how much of what Mr Connell told Mr Lloyd, Mr Lloyd passed on to Linde, it is necessary to address, in some detail, Mr Lloyd's evidence on this topic.

Mr Lloyd's evidence about what occurred on 10 and 13 August 2012

1. Mr Lloyd did not make a note of what Mr Connell had told him or what he said he had told Mr Raad. When Mr Lloyd made a statement to an investigator on 6 November 2012, he did not mention either that Mr Connell had spoken to him or that he had spoken to Mr Raad.
2. In his statement made on 7 December 2018 (over six years after the accident), Mr Lloyd said that recalled Mr Connell saying to him, "My machine is playing up and I have tagged it out." He also recalled Mr Connell telling him that "[t]he machine [forklift 432] had sped up for no reason faster than normal, and suddenly braked, giving [him] a real fright." Also in his statement dated 7 December 2018, Mr Lloyd said that Mr Connell had given him a more detailed description but that he could not recall the further detail. Mr Lloyd said that he formed the view, when he heard Mr Connell's description, that it was necessary to tag-out the machine and have it examined by Mr Raad.
3. Mr Lloyd described his usual practice of speaking to the technician to relay what he had been told by the driver. Mr Lloyd concluded that, after speaking with Mr Connell on 10 August 2012, he had told Mr Raad of the problem at Nestlé's premises on the same day, although he could not recall what he had said to Mr Raad about forklift 432.
4. However, after Mr Lloyd made his statement dated 7 December 2018, Linde served a statement made by Mr Raad dated 19 May 2020 in which Mr Raad said that he did not attend the Nestlé premises at Arndell Park on 10 August 2012 although he had attended on 13 August 2012. Nestlé's solicitors showed Mr Lloyd two further documents: Mr Raad's statement; and Mr Hickey's report, which contained a report of what Mr Connell had said was wrong with forklift 432.
5. In a supplementary statement on 26 February 2021, Mr Lloyd accepted that the conversation which he had with Mr Raad had taken place on 13 August 2012 rather than, as previously stated, 10 August 2012. He also purported to be able to recall that he told Mr Raad that: "… there was an issue with the forklift 432, that it was tagged out, and the description was around the, the forklift under acceleration, accelerated faster than anticipated. When the operator backed off, it then slowed down a lot faster than usual. No brake was activated then. Then as he accelerated again, it again picked up speed, and he actually put his foot onto the brake to slow the machine down, and then brought that machine back to the office to be tagged out."

Linde's evidence about the repair of forklift 432 on 13 August 2012

Mr Gorman's evidence

1. Mr Gorman taught Linde technicians, including Mr Raad, to adopt the following process when working on a forklift: "The standard, accepted, and complete methods of testing the forklift to detect any issues are firstly to undertake a visual inspection of all parts of the forklift, secondly to test drive it, and thirdly to run the diagnostic computer software developed by Linde called the Truck Doctor."
2. Mr Gorman accepted that there was nothing in this description which involved making any contact with the operator of the truck for the purpose of assisting with the diagnosis. He confirmed that technicians do not rely on the operator or the customer to tell them what the fault is. Technicians are trained to undertake the diagnosis themselves after making their own enquiries, although a customer might direct a technician's attention to a particular area of concern. Mr Gorman explained that the reason for this approach was that the machines are very sophisticated and the customer would rarely be in a position to provide any assistance to the technician. Nonetheless, he agreed that if he was not able to replicate a fault identified by a customer, he would inform the customer of that circumstance.

Linde's business records

1. A screenshot from Linde's computer system revealed that, at 2.36pm on 13 August 2012, Linde received a service call from "Tony" which identified that a forklift (432) required attention. The details which were put into the system, apart from the identity of the machine, were limited to "machines [sic] speed is playing up". This description was then inserted into Linde's computerised service listing history.
2. Linde's service listing history indicated that on 13 August 2012, Linde allocated the job of repairing forklift 432 to Mr Raad. Mr Raad had access to the description logged by Linde when the service call was made but he would not generally have access to what had been recorded on the tag-out records kept by Nestlé. For the purposes of these proceedings, Mr Raad has had access to what Mr Connell wrote on the tag-out for forklift 432 ("speed sensor issues"). Mr Raad said that such a description could only be a reference to the battery locking sensor and could not refer to any other issue with the forklift.
3. The service history listing, which Mr Raad filled in after the job was completed, recorded that Mr Raad spent an hour and a half working on forklift 432, which had, by that time, done 17,878km.

Mr Raad's evidence

1. Mr Raad did not have any particular memory of the job and was dependent on the business records kept by Linde and his knowledge of his usual practice. He did not recall talking about the job to Mr Lloyd, whom he regarded as performing an operational role, and said that he usually dealt with someone called Tony. Mr Raad did not consider that what he was told by supervisors or staff of Nestlé was of particular utility, other than to direct him to the relevant area of the forklift which was to be repaired. Mr Parker put to Mr Raad that he had had a conversation with Mr Lloyd along the lines of what is set out above. Mr Raad accepted that it was "possible". For the reasons given above, I do not accept that such a conversation occurred along the lines given by Mr Lloyd. If there was any such conversation (which I doubt), it was probably limited to what was on the tag-out (speed sensor issues). I am satisfied that Mr Raad followed his usual practice on 10 August 2012 when repairing forklift 432.
2. Mr Raad ran the Truck Doctor on forklift 432. The Truck Doctor diagnosed two faults: one relating to the battery locking sensor and the other relating to the reach sensor.
3. After having reviewed the service history, Mr Raad confirmed that he diagnosed a fault with the battery locking sensor: it was out of range and put the forklift in turtle mode when it was driving over bumps. This would cause the forklift to decelerate slowly down to 2.5km/h and then accelerate slowly to 12.5km/h. Mr Raad readjusted the battery locking sensor so that it would stay engaged with the battery tray when locked into place. Mr Raad then tested the repair by operating the unit in both directions to check that the battery locking sensor would stay in place.
4. He also diagnosed a fault with the reach sensor: that it was also out of range. The effect of this fault was that the reach function (mast reaching out and reaching back) would operate slowly.
5. Mr Raad recorded the following in the service history listing: "AFTER DIAGNOSING FOUND BATTERY LOCKING SENSOR OUT OF RANGE, PUTTING TRUCK IN TURTLE MODE WHEN DRIVING OVER BUMPS. ALSO FOUND REACH SENSOR OUT OF RANGE CREATING FAULT CODE IN THE MODULE AND BOOK LIGHT FLASHING. ADJUST AND CALIBRATE MAST REACH SENSORS, TEST DRIVE MACHINE, OPERATION NORMAL."
6. After Mr Raad had performed the repairs recorded above, he test-drove the forklift for between 20 minutes and half an hour. In accordance with his usual practice, he tested all the safety features and the steering and brakes in order to satisfy himself that the machine was operating normally. He then informed the supervisor at Nestlé that the machine had been repaired.

Subsequent use of forklift 432 between 13 August and 16 August 2012

1. After forklift 432 had been tagged out on 10 August 2012, there is no record of there being a problem with its performance until 16 August 2012. It was returned to service on 13 August 2012 after maintenance had been completed.
2. Pre-operation checklists were filled in by other workers in the intervening days. These workers were not called by Nestlé. Mr Connell had no occasion to use forklift 432 again. As set out above, it was permanently removed from service following the plaintiff's accident on 16 August 2012.

The circumstances of the accident on 16 August 2012

1. On Wednesday 15 August 2012, the plaintiff worked a normal day shift and finished at 11.10pm. He went to bed, slept well and got up at about 9am on 16 August 2012.

The request to do overtime on 16 August 2012

1. That morning, someone from Nestlé called the plaintiff to ask him to do overtime for the last four hours of the day shift. In accordance with his usual practice, the plaintiff agreed to do the additional overtime from 11.20am before commencing the afternoon shift at 3.10pm.

The allocation of duties and the allocation of forklift 432

1. On 16 August 2012, the plaintiff arrived at Nestlé's Arndell Park site at about 10.40am. He waited in the staff meal room until it was time to begin his shift. His usual forklift, 430, was driven by the person who usually drove it for the day shift. Mr Lloyd was the line manager for the day shift that day.
2. The plaintiff went into the supervisor's office at 11.20am. He was allocated forklift 432 and told to do "put aways", which involved using the forklift to move pallets of incoming stock to racks identified by the computer screen in his forklift. The plaintiff could not recall a previous occasion on which he had driven forklift 432. There were no tags or lock-outs on forklift 432 which indicated that it ought not be used.
3. Mr Connell was also working the day shift (commencing at 7.10am and concluding at 3.10pm) but as he was working as a "lay picker", he did not need to drive a forklift. I infer that this was why forklift 432, which was Mr Connell's usual forklift, was allocated to the plaintiff.

The completion of the pre-operation checklist

1. Although Nestlé could not locate the pre-operation checklist for forklift 432 on 16 August 2012, I accept the plaintiff's evidence that he followed his usual practice of completing a pre-operation checklist for forklift 432 before commencing work on the day shift. He did not note that there were any concerns about any of the items on the list, although he observed that the seat on forklift 432 was sloping to the left and was "badly worn out".
2. He explained in his evidence why he had not ticked the box which indicated that the seats needed work: "… if you want to talk about the seats, the whole fleet needed seats. So people weren't concentrating on that. That fleet was there for ten years. Five years over the, the lease that was supposed to be, that they took in the first place. So if we want to go about the checklist, the whole fleet shouldn't be on the floor."
3. After returning the pre-operation checklist to the office, the plaintiff went to forklift 432, logged onto the computer screen and began working.

The incident

1. At about 1.25pm, the plaintiff was driving the forklift from the dock to the rack section in accordance with an instruction shown on his computer screen within the forklift to proceed to aisle AD to collect a pallet to bring to the assembly line. He pushed the right pedal with his right foot to move the forklift to its full speed, which he described as a "brisk walking pace". The forklift went over a gap in the concrete floor of the warehouse which caused it to rattle.
2. At that point, the forklift accelerated to a speed which the plaintiff had never before experienced in a reach forklift. He said he could hear a whistling noise from the motor, which smelled as if something was burning. He lifted his foot from the accelerator but, instead of slowing, the forklift kept getting faster. He was very concerned about the speed of the forklift because he could see two other workers, Mr Walters and Mr Nguyen, coming out towards the main path, on which forklift 432 was travelling. Suddenly the forklift decelerated, which caused the plaintiff to lose balance, come off the forklift and fall onto the ground. His left arm went under his back. The forklift continued to move towards him and went over his left leg. The plaintiff started to scream with pain.
3. Mr Walters and Mr Nguyen were the first on the scene. Mr Lloyd and Mr Tabone heard on the two-way radio that there was an emergency at aisle AH and went straight to where the plaintiff was lying beside the forklift, as did Mr Connell and Ms Balewai. When he heard the call for help, Mr Neighbour came directly from the conference room. The ambulance was called. Those present tried to comfort the plaintiff and keep him conscious until the ambulance arrived. Mr Connell tried to calm the plaintiff down and distract him by asking questions about football. Mr Tabone asked the plaintiff to try to keep his eyes open and engaged him with conversation about the Bulldogs football team to divert his attention from the incident.
4. The ambulance took the plaintiff to Westmead Hospital where he remained from 16 August 2012 until 21 August 2012. He was given morphine and ketamine for the pain. Further findings regarding the plaintiff's injuries are set out below in the context of the assessment of damages.

Whether the plaintiff activated the hydraulic foot brake

1. There is an issue about whether the plaintiff applied pressure to the central pedal on the floor of the forklift, thereby activating the hydraulic foot brake. As the plaintiff's evidence was the only evidence on the topic, it is necessary to examine the versions he gave at various times to determine the question.

The versions given by the plaintiff at the scene of the accident

1. As soon as Mr Neighbour arrived at the scene, which was shortly after the plaintiff had fallen from the forklift, he heard the plaintiff telling Mr Lloyd: "The forklift. The forklift. It's crazy. It went crazy fast and threw me off."
2. In an email dated 17 August 2012, Mr Lloyd recorded his recollection as to what the plaintiff said at the time as follows: "I had asked Toufic to explain what had happened and he said 'the forklift just took off, I have never seen a high reach go as fast as this one'. I asked him to explain how he fell of the forklift, he replied 'the forklift sped up and he could not stop, it then felt like the brakes come on throwing him of balance and out of the forklift seat. As he fell the forklift caught his leg pushing him to the floor'. I asked if he remembers anything else, he replied 'No'."
3. Mr Tabone's recollection was also set out in an email which he sent to Mr Neighbour dated 17 August 2012. Mr Tabone said, of present relevance: "[The plaintiff] was saying … 'it took off the fork took off'".

The version the plaintiff gave at Westmead Hospital on 17 August 2012

1. On 17 August 2012 at 2.45pm Mr Hix, Mr Neighbour and Ms Balewai visited the plaintiff who was at Westmead Hospital. The plaintiff's wife was with him at the time. After leaving the hospital, Mr Neighbour prepared the following summary of what the plaintiff had told them in the course of their hour-long visit: "Notes were prepared post hospital visit by David Neighbour and David Hix. ● Said hello and normal pleasantries ● Toufic expressed a wish to talk about incident ● Toufic was issued a manual pick and was travelling along the front laneway to Isle [scil. aisle] AC to complete the pick. (Travelling empty). ● Toufic described the forklift un-accountably accelerating to crazy speed he hasn't seen before ● Toufic applied the brake (this was in question so we re-confirmed this 3 times to be sure). He is adamant he applied the brake himself. ● There was no mention of a skid (he couldn't recall) ● The forklift threw me off ● The forklift ran over my foot At various points in the conversation Toufic suggested that the trucks were old (Age and maintenance was in question) He was most anxious that root cause was established so that it didn't happen to anyone else Toufic was thankful for us coming and appreciated our support and help."

The version the plaintiff gave in the statutory declaration attached to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act claim form dated 10 October 2012

1. On 10 October 2012, Mark Nelson, the plaintiff's solicitor, brought a Motor Accidents Compensation Act claim form to The Hills Private Hospital to be filled out on behalf of the plaintiff. Samara, who was also present, read out to her father the questions on the claim form and carefully recorded his answers. Although some formal details were completed by Mr Nelson, Samara wrote most of the answers, as dictated to her by her father. When the form was completed, the plaintiff declared its contents to be true and correct. Mr Nelson witnessed the plaintiff's signature, as required for a statutory declaration.
2. Although the plaintiff intimated in his evidence that he was not in a fit state at that time to give a version of the accident, I am satisfied that neither Samara nor Mr Nelson would have pressed him to fill in the form had they not believed him to be capable of providing the necessary details or sufficiently lucid to express his answers to them. Had either had any concerns about whether the plaintiff was sufficiently alert to make the statutory declaration attached to the claim form, I am satisfied that the process of filling in the form would have been deferred.
3. Samara took down the plaintiff's description of the accident and wrote it in the claim form, as follows: "While doing normal duties at work driving forklift, the fork accelerated out of control by itself more than the standard limit which is walking pace. The forklift surged and jolted to application of breaks [scil. brakes]. The forklift failed to automatically stop despite me being ejected/thrown from the forklift seat. My left lower limb was run over by the forklift."

The version given by the plaintiff in his evidentiary statement dated 4 October 2017

1. In his evidentiary statement dated 4 October 2017, the plaintiff said that he had been about to apply his right foot to the brake but that he had come off the forklift before he had in fact applied it.

The plaintiff's evidence in chief

1. In his evidence in chief the plaintiff reiterated the version he had given in his statement of 4 October 2017 and said: "By the time I decided to apply the brake I was close to people. There was a wall, there was two people preparing to cart in. So then with that speed I decided to apply the pedal, because it's either I hit someone or I hit the wall. So I moved my right foot to apply the brake. The fork engaged the brake by itself. It was braking and it, it, it, and that's the last thing I remember before remembering the fork." [Emphasis added.]
2. I am satisfied that, after the forklift sped up, the plaintiff applied the brake to slow it down. I do not accept the later versions which are inconsistent with versions which the plaintiff gave much closer to the time of the incident.

Whether the forklift caused a skid mark on the concrete floor

1. The plaintiff gave evidence that the forklift skidded. He referred to there being a skid mark on the concrete floor near where his forklift stopped. However, the evidence as to the mark is not clear. The presence or materiality of the skid mark was not regarded as particularly germane by the experts, who were unable to replicate it. Accordingly, it is not necessary to address it further. It is the experience of courts that the witnesses who are suffering trauma at the time of the relevant event may have unreliable recollections of peripheral details (such as whistling, burning smell or skidding). I do not regard these matters as otherwise affecting the plaintiff's credibility.

Alleged admissions made by Nestlé

1. Samara gave evidence that three employees of Nestlé had told her that the forklift which her father had been driving when the accident had occurred had previously been reported as faulty. The first such statement had been made to her in Accident and Emergency at Westmead Hospital on 16 August 2012, when Ms Balewai told her that the forklift had been reported to be faulty. According to Samara, Ms Balewai told her that at the time of the accident, a man was screaming, "Why is this fork on the floor? I've reported it for the same problems multiple times in the preceding months."
2. Samara also gave evidence that when she spoke with Mr Neighbour the day after the accident, he could not say what was wrong with the forklift but told her that it was being investigated. He confirmed that the forklift had been reported faulty before the accident.
3. Samara also gave evidence that when the plaintiff was still at Westmead Hospital, Mr Hix had been present when she and her mother were visiting the plaintiff. She asked Mr Hix whether he had been aware that the forklift was reported faulty shortly before the accident, to which Mr Hix answered, "yes".
4. On the assumption (which need not be determined) that Ms Balewai, Mr Neighbour and Mr Hix had authority to make admissions on behalf of Nestlé, these admissions (which are admissible only against Nestlé and not against Linde) do not take the matter any further since they accord with the uncontroverted evidence that forklift 432 had a fault on 10 August 2012, when Mr Connell was driving it, and that the reason for the fault which the plaintiff described could not be determined. Further, Mr Connell's evidence was that he had said words to the effect of those reported by Ms Balewai although he denied that he had screamed them. Mr Connell's evidence about the operation of forklift 432 on 10 August 2012 is summarised above.

The cause of the accident

1. Neither Mr Gorman nor Mr Raad could explain the fault described by the plaintiff. Mr Raad said that he was not aware of any mechanical malfunction, fault or defect which could cause the machine to behave or operate in the manner described by the plaintiff, as under all normal or fault based circumstances the machine will decrease or increase its speed gradually.
2. Mr Raad said that, had he been told that forklift 432 was going faster than usual, he would have regarded that behaviour as highly unusual. He agreed that if that had been the problem he would not have returned the forklift to service until he had solved the problem.
3. The cause of the accident is further addressed below when I turn to the evidence of the independent experts.

Action to remove forklift 432 from service

1. Mr Neighbour removed forklift 432 from service and arranged for it to be isolated by barriers and tagged out of service. It was not used again. Mr Neighbour kept the key in his office. It was parked within sight of his office so that it could not be tampered with.

Appointment of in-house investigators

1. On 17 August 2012, an incident investigation form was completed by Mr Massoud and Ms Balewai, who were identified on the form as investigators. They included the following description of the accident: "Toufic was driving south in the main thoroughfare. He was not carrying any stock on his HR [high reach] forklift #432 in from of AH-AI racks. Toufic was ejected from his forklift, landing on concrete floor, with his left foot stuck under the forklift wheel or wedged under the forklift frame. Toufic was screaming for help and Paul Walters attended and moved Toufic's forklift off his foot."

Internal analysis of causes, issues and action required

1. On 20 August 2012, Nestlé staff (Ms Balewai, Mr Lloyd, Mr Connell and Mr Massoud) filled in a pro forma "problem solving worksheet" with respect to the plaintiff's accident. The specific problem was said to be that an "employee [was] ejected off forklift 432 outside aisle AI-AH in thoroughfare, causing foot to be caught under forklift." The objective was said to be: "Eliminate all associated risks with forklift crushing injuries." The relevance of the issue was said to arise "anywhere internally in the warehouse" "when forklift is in motion" and concerned "any lateral motion on the floor" and "all shifts/all operators".
2. One of the issues identified was "no restraint" on the forklift. The action required was said to be "obtain quote for seatbelts" on forklifts.
3. The possible causes in the "product" (the forklift) were listed and included: aged forklift, no lip on forklift seat, condition of tyres, mechanical fault in forklift, no seatbelt, smooth seat surface, forklift brakes lock up, forklift sped up automatically. The possible causes in the "system" included "LOTO [Lock Out Tag Out log book] not closed/completed", which I take to be a reference to the blank final column following forklift 432's return to service after it had been repaired by Mr Raad on 13 August 2012. The possible causes in the "process" included the frequency with which the forklifts were serviced and maintained.

The test by Mr Gorman on 28 August 2012

1. On 28 August 2012, Mr Gorman went to Nestlé's site to inspect forklift 432 to ascertain whether there was any detectable fault and also to operate the forklift. Mr Gorman used a track area of approximately 50m in length at the warehouse to test the braking and traction of forklift 432 in different situations, including reverse current braking and regenerative braking. The testing took about an hour and was conducted in the presence of Mr Hickey and Adam Fisher, of Linde. The test-driving was repeated to confirm the first results.
2. After he had finished test-driving forklift 432, Mr Gorman connected a laptop computer, which had been loaded with the Truck Doctor software, to the forklift to ascertain what fault codes had been logged in the past. He listed the fault codes found and confirmed that each fault code logged would have put the forklift either into turtle mode or into shutdown mode. For example, Mr Gorman identified three occasions on which fault code "77" had been logged and explained that this fault code indicates that the output signals from the battery do not correspond with the measured current from the motor, which means that the power is not being delivered to the forklift. This quickly leads to the forklift becoming stationary following slow deceleration. No faults were detected in forklift 432 when Mr Gorman operated it on 28 August 2012.
3. Mr Gorman's evidence, in a technical report attached to his witness statement, was: "The following error codes [which included 71, 77, 87 and 88] indicate a possible fault within the traction control module. If the truck has loss of function because of these then the module should be replaced." [Emphasis added.]
4. Mr Gorman was unable to explain how or why forklift 432 had behaved as the plaintiff had described on 16 August 2012. Nor was he able to explain why what Mr Connell described as having happened on 10 August 2012 had occurred. In his 43 years working with forklifts he had never before seen a forklift come to an abrupt stop and then start again at full speed.

The tests conducted by Mr Hickey on 3 September 2012

1. On 3 September 2012, Mr Hickey, Mr Gorman and Mr Fisher returned to Nestlé's Arndell Park premises to inspect and test forklift 432 as well as another forklift of identical make and model (the exemplar).
2. The purpose of the testing was to work out whether the g-forces experienced by the plaintiff in forklift 432 were sufficient to eject him from the seat. The g-forces on a driver were calculated by measuring the stopping distance of forklift 432 and the exemplar when certain brakes on the forklift were operated. This question was ultimately the subject of the expert conclave which is addressed further below.
3. No measurements were taken of the maximum attainable speed of either forklift 432 or the exemplar. As it was not measured, it was accepted that it was unknown and was, accordingly, the subject of alternative assumptions.
4. Four permutations were tested. Each required the driver of the forklift to use a different braking method when a particular marking was crossed. The four permutations were: first, the emergency stop brake alone; secondly, the hydraulically operated foot brake; thirdly, the foot brake and the emergency stop brake (located on the drive motor); and fourthly, the seat switch brake (otherwise known as the deadman's brake).
5. The test involved a person driving the forklift (432 and the exemplar) to its maximum speed by pressing the pedal to the floor and, at a designated braking point, braking, using the particular brake or brakes in the relevant permutation. The stopping distance (being the distance between the designated braking point and the point at which the forklift came to rest) was then measured. As each test was repeated twice, there were three results for each brake permutation (set out above) and each forklift (432 and the exemplar).
6. The formula used to calculate the g-force on the driver was: v2 = u2 + 2as.
7. The letter "v" is the final speed of the forklift (in this case, zero, as it had stopped). The letter "a" is the calculated g-force. The letter "s" is the stopping distance. The letter "u" is the initial velocity, which was assumed to be either 12.5km/h or 7.5km/h). Thus, the only measurement taken was the stopping distance since the other variable of the initial velocity was assumed and the final velocity was necessarily zero (as the vehicle had stopped).

The lay expert evidence

1. As is apparent from the descriptions of the qualifications and experience of those directly and indirectly involved in the operations of Nestlé at the time of the plaintiff's accident, many of the lay witnesses were also experts. Before addressing the evidence of the independent experts, I propose to summarise the opinions of the lay experts in so far as they bear on the issues considered by the independent experts.
2. On 16 August 2012, when the plaintiff was being treated at the scene by ambulance officers, Mr Connell said to someone on the management team of Nestlé (he cannot recall to whom) that forklift 432 had had the same issue the week before. I infer from Mr Lloyd's evidence that Mr Lloyd was one of the people to whom Mr Connell expressed his opinion.
3. Mr Lloyd agreed in cross-examination that the plaintiff's description of what had happened with the forklift was "very similar" to the description which he had been given by Mr Connell six days previously.
4. Mr Gorman was unable to reconcile the behaviour of forklift 432 as described by Mr Connell (or the plaintiff) with what he knew about the characteristics of the forklift. He considered that the forklift was designed to decrease speed slowly if it went into turtle mode and then would accelerate normally when coming out of turtle mode. I note that neither Mr Connell nor the plaintiff described forklift 432 as having gone into turtle mode.

The expert liability evidence

1. The liability experts met in conclave on 11 February 2020 and prepared a joint report which was admitted as a court exhibit. They gave concurrent evidence on 18 and 19 March 2021. Each of the experts was a qualified engineer. None had particular expertise in computers, nor did they have the expertise in the LDC which governed the functions of the Linde forklifts used by Nestlé.
2. The substantial consensus between the liability experts, as expressed in the conclave and in their concurrent evidence, relieves me of the task of summarising the reports of each, as the relevant material was reviewed in oral evidence.

Whether the forklift could exceed the maximum set speed of 12.5km/h

1. Much of the experts' consideration turned on whether the forklift could exceed its maximum set speed of 12.5km/h. Because of the way Mr Cranitch ultimately put the plaintiff's case, it is not necessary to determine this question. The question is, in any event, arid as forklift 432 was not shown to be capable of travelling at that speed in any event. For completeness, I propose to summarise the opinions of the experts on the question.
2. Mr Johnston opined that because 12.5km/h was the pre-programmed speed, the forklift should not exceed that speed "but that is not to say it didn't or it can't." He agreed that there was nothing in the motor of the drive mechanism of the forklift that would prevent it, in the absence of the LDC control, exceeding the set speed. Mr Hickey confirmed that he had simply accepted that 12.5km/h was the maximum speed as he does not have expertise in electronics.
3. Mr Lewis and Dr White agreed that the only way the speed could exceed 12.5km/h would be if the LDC had an electronic problem. Dr White considered that if there was a failure in the electronic parts of the LDC which caused the maximum speed to be exceeded, he would expect those components to fail permanently if they were to fail at all. He considered an intermittent fault to be unlikely.

Whether the forces on the plaintiff would have been sufficient to eject him from the seat of forklift 432

1. As referred to above, the four liability experts considered the results of the tests performed by Mr Hickey and Dr White, when opining on whether the g-forces were sufficient to eject a driver (such as the plaintiff) from the seat of the forklift. The starting point was Newton's first law of physics: that a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an external force. A material consideration in this question was the circumstance that the plaintiff was facing perpendicular to the direction of travel, with the consequence that the momentum which operated on his body would be in a direction either towards or away from the opening to his left. This contrasts with the usual situation of a driver in a vehicle, such as a car, where the momentum is towards or away from the windscreen of the vehicle.
2. Dr White did not consider that there would be sufficient friction between the tyres of the forklift and the concrete floor of the warehouse to generate a level of deceleration of 0.62g (as calculated by Mr Hickey on the two occasions referred to above). He would expect the highest value to be in the order of 0.5g.
3. The experts noted maximum braking force which Dr White was able to achieve (with hydraulic brakes pressed as hard as possible) was 0.4g (which was deduced as an average of measurements). The other experts were concerned that the noise of the data meant that the result contained significant uncertainty. Dr White added that if, as the plaintiff said in his evidence in chief, he did not apply the hydraulic brakes at all, the maximum rate of deceleration would be limited by the electric power delivered by the motor. Thus, if the forklift "braked itself" without the application of the hydraulic brake, the forces would be significantly less. This evidence is of limited relevance, having regard to my finding that the plaintiff did apply the foot (hydraulic) brake, as reflected in his more contemporaneous versions.
4. The experts agreed that although they could speculate about the forces that applied to the plaintiff's body at the time, they could not calculate the forces because of the number of unknown variables, including the actual speed of the forklift. Even on the basis of assumed speeds, the variables were such that they regarded the question as not being susceptible of scientific determination.

1. On this basis, Mr Lewis considered that, on the figures calculated by Dr White, the chance of the plaintiff being dislodged in the way he described was between 20% and 60%. Dr White was critical of the applicability of this data because he considered that it related to people who were, typically, not expecting the deceleration. He contrasted their position with that of the plaintiff, who, having pressed the brake pedal, must have been expecting the deceleration and could brace himself for it. Mr Lewis responded by saying that in the data he used, the participants were not expecting the deceleration, except in a general sense (they were participating in a test).
2. Mr Johnston had regard to data contained in the Australia Rural Road Design Guide relating to the forces required to dislodge a person from a seat. He considered that, based on these figures, when the deceleration begins to approach 0.4g, the occupant needs to actively resist the inertia or they will be forced out of position.
3. Dr White considered that g-forces of more than 0.45g would be required to dislodge the plaintiff from the seat of the forklift.
4. Mr Hickey regarded the question of what force was required to dislodge the plaintiff from his seat to be incapable of scientific determination, as he explained in the following passage: "For example, if you're sitting in a seat, you're anchored to that seat by the friction between your pants and the seat itself. You're also anchored to the seat by the contour of the seat. You are, you can, you can be thrown in the direction of travel if you are particularly top heavy, for example. If your upper body is much heavier than your lower body. If you are not holding onto anything. If your feet are not anchoring you in that seat, then you can be propelled. But all of those variables, I think, are just too, too hard to calculate. You may be able to determine what force will throw people off a seat by experiment. But again, I think the experiments that you conduct would have an enormous number of variables, so I don't know the answer to this question."
5. On 19 March 2021, the second day on which the experts gave concurrent evidence, Mr Hickey opined that the quantum of the g-force, though a relevant factor in the question whether someone would be dislodged from a seat, was only one of a number of factors and not necessarily the most significant. He instanced other factors such as the material of the clothing worn by the occupant and the material of the seat, whether the seat is contoured, and in what way, whether the occupant is anticipating the braking effect (and can therefore adopt a bracing position) or surprised by it, and the physical attributes of the occupant. Mr Hickey illustrated this point by instancing a bus crash where, although the g-forces on all passengers would be the same, some passengers would walk away unharmed, whereas others would be killed or severely injured. He considered that in light of these factors it was not scientifically determinable whether someone will become dislodged from their seat at a particular g-force. Mr Hickey added that, if the plaintiff applied the foot brake, then this would tend to lessen the chance that he would be dislodged because he would then be expecting the deceleration which would incline him to brace accordingly. However, Mr Hickey and Dr White agreed that if the bracing was in a different direction to the direction of travel (as in a forklift such as forklift 432, or when, for example, passengers in a tram are oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel on centre-facing seats), the efficacy of bracing to resist the sideways movement would depend on the friction between the parts of the body and the seat, the floor and other parts of the forklift.

Whether the conduct of the forklift as described by the plaintiff could be explained by the experts

1. The experts were asked to opine on the probable cause of the event, as described by the plaintiff. The version which formed the basis of the opinions was as follows. The plaintiff, who was seated in the forklift facing the controls, pressed the left pedal to cause the forklift to move in the direction opposite the tines. The forklift encountered a crack in the concrete floor which rattled the forklift. He continued to press the left pedal. The forklift accelerated beyond its usual speed. The plaintiff took his left foot off the left pedal but instead of slowing, the forklift went faster. At that point the plaintiff decided to apply the foot brake but before he had pressed the pedal the forklift decelerated sharply and dislodged him from his seat.
2. Mr Johnston and Mr Lewis agreed that the described defect must derive from the LDC. Otherwise, they could not say what caused the problem.
3. Mr Hickey and Dr White had difficulty rationalising the plaintiff's description of the accident with all the faults recorded by the forklift. Neither could find a fault indicator which corresponded with the plaintiff's version of what occurred.
4. The experts said as follows in their joint report: "The experts are therefore not able to tell from the Linde records whether the malfunction referred to by Mr Connell was actually rectified by Linde. However, they feel obliged to record that they are not certain that the particular malfunction referred to by Mr Connell actually has a rational explanation or that it did occur. The design of the power and control function on the particular reach truck accused of having suffered that malfunction, in their view, make it extremely unlikely that it could have occurred in the way described either by Mr Connell or by Mr Metri. In the experts' opinion, a malfunction in the speed control arrangements on those trucks would either stop the truck altogether or would slow the motion of the forklift truck (put it into turtle mode). While there are some questions about the description given by Mr Connell, the prudent mechanic should have consulted with him to get a clearer description of what went wrong, given the seriousness of it, and should have consulted with him when the reach truck was being tagged back into service to ensure he was satisfied with the fix. The experts agree that the while Mr Connell's report does not seem to make sense from a technical point of view, that only gives even more reason for the technician to speak to Mr Connell and gain a clear understanding of what he meant."

Whether the conduct of the forklift as described by Mr Connell could be explained by the experts

1. The experts were asked to opine on the following conduct of the forklift described by Mr Connell: "When I was driving it I was heading with my left foot on the pedal, just cruising along, when all of a sudden the machine sped up. It started to go much faster than normal, which startled me, then all of a sudden the brakes came on and pulsed, which threw me to the side a little before they quickly released. The machine kept on cruising at its normal speed. I decided to bring it straight back here and tag it out."
2. In substance, the experts gave the same answers to this scenario as they did to the scenario regarding the plaintiff's accident.

Whether there was a material difference between Mr Connell's description of the issue with forklift 432 on the tag (speed sensor issues) and his broader description of the issue

1. The experts opined that if the only information provided to Mr Raad on 13 August 2012 was that recorded on the tag ("speed sensor issues") or as conveyed in the telephone call-out ("machine speed playing up"), Mr Raad did what would reasonably be expected of him. Mr Hickey said that by logging the fault code, performing diagnostic work to determine an applicable fault code, relating sensor issues (which would affect speed) to that fault code, repairing the sensors and testing the performance of the forklift, Mr Raad had performed the task allocated to him. Dr White opined that there were two issues which Mr Raad identified which were potentially making the speed of the forklift go up and down and that, by remedying these two issues, Mr Raad had done what was expected of him.
2. However, the experts were also asked to consider the scenario of Mr Raad being given Mr Connell's description of the behaviour of forklift 432 (which Mr Connell said he communicated to Mr Lloyd and which Mr Lloyd accepted was communicated to him).
3. The other experts agreed with Mr Johnston's opinion that the primary issue raised by Mr Connell's description to Mr Lloyd was an "over-speed phenomenon". He said that this would not be attributable to the battery sensor and therefore repair of the battery sensor could not be expected to solve that problem. Dr White explained the difference in the following passage: "If Mr Raad was just working off the complaint that the machine speed is playing up. He may have thought that the speed is perhaps not getting all the way up to the normal pre-set maximum. But he would not necessarily be looking for a fault that might cause the speed to exceed its normal pre-set maximum. If Mr Raad had been advised that the machine speed was exceeding its normal pre-set maximum, then I would expect Mr Raad would undertake further diagnostic steps to see why this unusual problem had presented."
4. The experts agreed that, had Mr Raad been aware of the over-speeding issue and had no cause been ascertained, they would have expected further discussion with Mr Connell to isolate the issues and that forklift 432 would have been kept out of service "until clarity on the issue and its causes was understood."

Whether a restraint or other device was reasonably required for the driver of a reach forklift

1. It was common ground among the experts that, at the time of the accident, the applicable Australian Standard, AS 2359, did not require seatbelts to be worn by the drivers of reach forklifts, although such seatbelts were required to be worn in counterbalance forklifts.
2. There was other material within the industry in Australia and elsewhere which indicated, according to Mr Hickey: "… an understanding in the industry, the materials handling industry, that, for counterbalanced trucks, you should stay within the confines. For high-lift reach trucks, the opposite applies and you should leave the cabin via that open entry/exit way."
3. Mr Hickey explained the materiality of the distinction as follows: "… counterbalance forklift trucks tend to roll sideways, and so there's a rollover protection, protective guard on counterbalance forklift trucks. And so if you're staying inside that guard as, as an operator you are generally protected from the forklift rolling on you and killing you. If you try and get out, you may well be trapped by the guard, and, in fact, there have been quite a lot of accidents where the operators of, of counterbalance forklift trucks have been crushed by the guard itself because they don't get clear of the guard; they get clear of, clear of the forklift, but they don't get clear of the guard. Whereas the nature of the guard on a reach truck is a fall on protective guard, and in the event of a rollover a reach truck is more likely to tip forward than it is to tip sideways in my view, and so you're better off to try and get out the back if you can. The other thing is that if it does tip sideways, the fall on protective guard on a reach truck is not going to be much protection for you."
4. However, Mr Hickey added that there was little risk of a reach forklift tipping over because such vehicles generally operate on a firm, level surface inside warehouses and are designed to operate between racks which are very high. The experts opined generally about the differences of opinion in the industry. In the end, these differences are not helpful because of the lack of specificity of circumstances in which forklifts are intended to operate. For example, whether reach forklifts are picking up loads from loading docks bears on the risk of tipping since this activity increases that risk.

The risk of harm

1. The duty of care which Nestlé, as the plaintiff's employer, owed to him included a duty to obtain suitable equipment and take reasonable care to maintain and repair it: TNT Australia Pty Limited v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCA 47 at [60]-[61] (Mason P); see also, Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121; [2000] HCA 18 at [102] (Kirby J).
2. Although parts of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) do not apply to motor vehicle accidents (which is the basis of the plaintiff's claim against Nestlé), Divisions 1-4 and 8 of Part 1A (Negligence) do apply: s 3B(2)(a) of the Civil Liability Act. It is therefore necessary to address the applicable provisions when determining the scope of the duty of care, whether there was a breach and whether causation has been established.
3. The starting point is the identification of the risk of harm in respect of which it is said the relevant defendant was obliged to take reasonable precautions as required by ss 5B and 5C of the Civil Liability Act. It is against that risk of harm that the court determines the defendant's knowledge (actual or constructive) of a specified risk of harm, assess the probability of that risk occurring in order to evaluate the reasonableness of the defendant's response or lack of response: Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42 (Dederer) at [59]-[61] (Gummow J).
4. The risk of harm must be articulated with sufficient precision to be relevant to the assessment of reasonableness but ought not be so specific as to be unworkable: Dederer at [59]. In the present case, the risk of harm is the risk of a forklift operator being dislodged from the forklift while the forklift is still in motion. Factors such as the configuration of the forklift, which is open to the side opposite the tines; the lack of a restraining device or any significant contouring on the seat; and the orientation of the driver, who sits perpendicular to the direction of travel, mean that the risk is plainly foreseeable. Any sudden or unexpected change in the speed of the forklift will give rise to this risk of harm. Such a change may occur because of a malfunction in the brakes or speed controls of the forklift but may also come about as a result of a collision between the forklift and another object which will bring it to a sudden stop or require it to change direction. This risk cannot be regarded as insignificant.

The probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken

1. The probability that the harm will occur if care were not taken depends on various factors which include the speed of the forklift, the co-efficient of friction between the material of which the driver's clothing is made and the material with which the seat is covered, any contouring of the seat and whether the driver is expecting the change and is in a position to brace to counteract the forces. The prospect of a driver being ejected from the forklift in the event of a sudden change of movement of the forklift must be regarded as relatively low, having regard to the speed at which such forklifts (that is, reach forklifts) travel, although it is higher than it would be if the driver's seat were oriented in the direction of travel rather than perpendicular to it.

The likely seriousness of the harm

1. The likely seriousness of the harm is very great. If a forklift driver is dislodged from the seat of a forklift, he or she will probably fall on a hard surface since such forklifts typically travel on the concrete floors of warehouses. The impact of the fall itself could cause substantial injury. An even greater concern is the prospect (which occurred in the present case) that the driver will fall into the path of the forklift and that the forklift will continue to move, albeit for a short period, after the driver has been dislodged from the seat. The momentum of a forklift is such that the body of the driver will be insufficient to stop or materially retard its progress. Thus, if the driver's body, or any part of it, is in the path of the forklift, catastrophic injury or death is foreseeable, if not inevitable.
2. The documents produced by Nestlé after the accident indicate the seriousness with which it regarded the incident. For example, in the problem-solving worksheet dated 20 August 2012 (referred to above), the "objective" was stated to be to "eliminate all associated risks with forklift crushing injuries".

The burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm

1. The burden of taking reasonable precautions depends on the identification of the precautions proposed. The plaintiff proposed three precautions. The first is that the forklifts be regularly and adequately maintained and replaced before they exceed their useful life; the second is that there be adequate communication between the operator of the forklift (in the present case, Nestlé) and the repair technician if an issue arises which causes the forklift to behave erratically, including by over-speeding. The third precaution proposed by the plaintiff was that there be contouring of the seat or a safety device, such as a seatbelt or a guard to assist the driver to remain in the seat. There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any particular burden imposed by the implementation of either such requirements. The evidence does not suggest that such steps would be particularly expensive, difficult or impractical.
2. However, before inferring that the installation of a seatbelt would constitute a reasonable precaution, it is necessary to address the issue raised in the concurrent evidence of the experts: is it, on balance, safer or more dangerous to fit a seatbelt on a reach forklift? The reason for the question is that, pursuant to s 5C(a) of the Civil Liability Act, the burden of taking precautions to avoid a risk of harm includes the burden of taking precautions to avoid similar risks of harm for which the person may be responsible. Thus, if restraining a driver within a reach forklift would render the driver susceptible to a greater risk of harm than were the driver to be unrestrained, it will not be a reasonable precaution to require a seatbelt to be installed. Negligence is to be determined prospectively and not retrospectively: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 240; [2009] HCA 48 at [31] and [40] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ).
3. The experts were equivocal about the relative benefits of seatbelts in forklifts and appeared to answer such questions by reference to their inherent biases (those with experience in road accidents tended to favour restraint because of the overwhelming benefits of seatbelts in such scenarios). They drew attention to the literature which tended not to distinguish between counterbalance forklifts (which are at significantly greater risk of tipping) and reach forklifts, notwithstanding the differences between them which are summarised above.

The social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm

1. Forklifts are used in depots which, like the one operated by Nestlé at Arndell Park, are used to store and distribute grocery items throughout the Sydney metropolitan area and elsewhere. There is a social utility in manufactured household goods, including food, being able to be assembled in a large warehouse before being distributed to retailers. The timely assembly and distribution of such goods and the quantities in which they are stored requires, on the present state of knowledge, the movement of goods. A forklift is particularly well suited to effect such movements. I consider the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm to be high.

Negligence of Nestlé

1. In my view, a reasonable person in the position of Nestlé on 16 August 2012, would have taken all three of the precautions identified by the plaintiff: namely, adopted a system of maintenance and replacement of forklifts in accordance with Linde's recommendations, implemented a system where the forklift operators description of the fault was communicated in terms to the repair technician; and the fitting of seats within the forklift that contained seatbelts or other means (such as contouring and appropriate fabric) in order to minimise the risk of a driver being involuntarily dislodged from the seat.
2. Indeed, Nestlé intended to replace its fleet with forklifts which were fitted with seatbelts. Had the replacement proceeded in accordance with the initial schedule, the forklifts would have been replaced in 2008. Had it not been for the possibility that Nestlé would relocate the operations conducted at Arndell Park to another site, the forklift fleet would have been replaced prior to the plaintiff's accident. Had the fleet been replaced, the drivers would have been provided with safer forklifts, fitted with seatbelts, which Nestlé's procedure would have obliged them to use when driving them.
3. I infer, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that it was not impractical to replace the seats, or their covering, or install seatbelts on the existing seats. Indeed, such evidence as there is on the topic would indicate that the costs of a seatbelt kit was $241.86. Linde's reluctance to replace the LDC power module for forklift 432 on 7 July 2012 (as recorded in Linde's service history) because of the cost and the supposed rarity of the occurrence may indicate a more general disinclination, pre-accident, to spend money on forklifts which were overdue for replacement.
4. Nestlé was astute, immediately following the accident, to work out what had gone wrong and make sure that such an incident would not recur. In prescribing appropriate measures, it needed to look no further than the documents already in its possession and its existing knowledge of the risk and how to attenuate it. While it is important to avoid engaging in hindsight reasoning, it is evident from the pre-accident material tendered by the plaintiff in his case against Nestlé (which is summarised and extracted above), that Nestlé was well aware of the need for restraints for forklift drivers (from its 2008 Risk Assessment). It had refrained from replacing the forklifts for operational reasons (the possible relocation of its operations).

What happened on 10 August 2012 and why?

1. In order to determine the question of causation, it is first necessary to address what happened on 10 August 2012 and 16 August 2012, and why it happened.
2. Both Mr Connell and the plaintiff were, in August 2012, very experienced forklift drivers. There was no relevant challenge to the reliability of their versions, except, in the plaintiff's case, as to whether he had applied pressure to the foot brake before being dislodged from the forklift. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied, on the basis of contemporaneous versions given, that the plaintiff did apply pressure to the foot brake. There was no suggestion that Mr Connell and the plaintiff had colluded in giving their evidence to assist the plaintiff's case. I am satisfied that they are both witnesses of truth who gave evidence as to the circumstances of the operation of forklift 432 reliably and accurately (with the exception referred to above in the case of the plaintiff). While the plaintiff could be not be regarded as relevantly disinterested (because of his claim for damages), Mr Connell had no particular motive other than to tell the truth, since the erratic conduct of forklift 432, while it had given him a shock, had not caused him any injury.
3. I regard it as significant that Mr Connell, as soon as he heard the plaintiff's description of what had caused him to fall from the forklift on 16 August 2012, was concerned that the forklift had been allowed to return to service when it exhibited what was, to his mind, similar deficiencies as had been evident on 10 August 2012, which had led him to tag it out. It is also telling that when Mr Lloyd (who had been a forklift driver himself before being promoted) heard about what had happened to the plaintiff, he made the connection with the description which Mr Connell had given to him six days previously, which he regarded as "very similar".
4. The "lay" evidence of the plaintiff, Mr Connell and Mr Lloyd is significant because of their lengthy experience in the use and operation of forklifts of the make and model of forklift 432. It is also telling that there was no challenge to Mr Connell's reliability and only limited challenge to the plaintiff's reliability (regarding the use of the foot brake) and to that of Mr Lloyd (regarding his recollection of what he passed on to Mr Raad of what he had been told by Mr Connell).

The consequences of failing to take the reasonable precaution of telling Linde what Mr Connell had experienced

1. The duty of care which Nestlé owed to its employees required it, for the reasons given above, to ensure that Mr Raad was made aware of Mr Connell's description of the behaviour of forklift 432. Nestlé failed to do this. Its system of relaying a shorthand version of the problem ("machine speed playing up") was manifestly inadequate to inform Mr Raad of the gravamen of the principal fault in forklift 432. Had Mr Raad been informed of what Mr Connell described, he would have recommended that the forklift remain tagged out and not used unless and until the problem could be replicated and remedied. Thus, had Nestlé taken this reasonable precaution, the plaintiff would not have been injured. This is sufficient to satisfy the "but for" test of factual causation in s 5D(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act: Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375; [2013] HCA 19 at [16] (French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ).
2. Further, in my view, it is appropriate for the scope of Nestlé's liability to extend to the harm so caused. It owned forklift 432 and employed Mr Connell. It contracted with Linde to maintain the forklifts. Nestlé appreciated that any defect in a forklift could give rise to a risk of injury in those present in the warehouse, including drivers, pickers and other persons who happened to be there. Its failure to implement a system to ensure that the technician had the information which was available to Nestlé was negligent.
3. Although the subsequent taking of action that would (had the action been taken earlier) have avoided a risk of harm does not of itself give rise to or affect liability in respect of the risk and does not constitute an admission of liability, it is nonetheless relevant that forklift 432 was taken out of service on 16 August 2012 and never used again. This action was taken notwithstanding that the defect in forklift 432, of which Mr Connell and the plaintiff complained (which I am satisfied was substantially the same fault and had the same (unknown) genesis), could not be replicated. Had this precautionary approach been taken on 10 August 2012, the plaintiff would not have been injured. Mr Connell's "near miss" ought to have been sufficient to remind and alert Nestlé of the dangers posed when a driver, because of an incident/collision, falls out of a forklift, due to forces operating on the driver, which include erratic acceleration or deceleration.

The consequence of failing to take the reasonable precaution of providing a seat for the forklifts which enabled the driver to remain in the forklift

1. Had the seat in forklift 432 been contoured, upholstered with textured fabric or fitted with a seatbelt, the plaintiff would probably not have been ejected from it. This is sufficient to satisfy the "but for" test of factual causation in s 5D(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for Nestlé's liability to extend to the harm caused in the present case. Having conducted the 2008 Risk Assessment, Nestlé was well aware of the risk of a driver being dislodged from the seat of a reach forklift. It determined that seats fitted with seatbelts was an appropriate control to reduce the risk from "critical" to "serious". Yet, four years after the 2008 Risk Assessment was performed, Nestlé had done nothing to mitigate that particular risk, whether by installing contoured seats, fitting seatbelts or replacing the forklifts.

The consequence of failing to maintain the forklifts adequately or replace them when they had come to the end of their useful life

1. The evidence is insufficient to establish that there was any particular error in the maintenance of the forklift fleet which caused the accident or that the forklifts had necessarily come to the end of their useful life. It is, accordingly, not necessary to address this aspect of the plaintiff's case against Nestlé further.

Conclusion

1. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that Nestlé is liable to the plaintiff for damages in negligence.

Linde's limitation defence to the plaintiff's claim in negligence

1. Before addressing whether Linde is liable in negligence to the plaintiff, it is necessary to consider Linde's alleged limitation defence.

The relevant statutory provisions

1. Linde has pleaded a defence under the Limitation Act in respect of the plaintiff's claim against it. Section 50C(1)(a) of the Limitation Act relevantly provides that an action for damages for personal injury is not maintainable if brought after the expiration of the 3 year post discoverability limitation period, which is the period of 3 years running from and including the date on which the cause of action is discoverable by the plaintiff.
2. Section 50D relevantly provides as follows: "50D Date cause of action is discoverable (1) For the purposes of this Division, a cause of action is discoverable by a person on the first date that the person knows or ought to know of each of the following facts: (a) the fact that the injury or death concerned has occurred, (b) the fact that the injury or death was caused by the fault of the defendant, (c) in the case of injury, the fact that the injury was sufficiently serious to justify the bringing of an action on the cause of action. (2) A person ought to know of a fact at a particular time if the fact would have been ascertained by the person had the person taken all reasonable steps before that time to ascertain the fact. (3) In determining what a person knows or ought to have known, a court may have regard to the conduct and statements, oral or in writing, of the person. …"

The initial knowledge of the plaintiff

1. The parties agreed that the only issue was whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the fact that his injuries were caused by the fault of Linde (s 50D(1)(b)) by 12 June 2016, being three years before the statement of claim was amended to add Linde as a party on 12 June 2019. In order to determine this issue, it is necessary to make findings as to the relevant facts.
2. The plaintiff admitted that, from the time of the injury (which he immediately realised was serious and permanent), he knew that he had done nothing wrong and, accordingly, attributed the accident to the fault of someone else. He believed that it was a fault in the forklift which caused the accident and understood that Linde was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the forklifts. He had observed Linde service staff on the Nestlé premises at Arndell Park working on forklifts.

The plaintiff's retainer of Mr Nelson and Mr Cranitch

1. The plaintiff's eldest daughter, Samara, made enquiries of solicitors who could advise her father about what remedy he might have for his injuries. To that end, she contacted Mr Nelson, who agreed to provide advice. Mr Nelson, an accredited specialist in the area of claims for personal injury, was aware of the limitation period in ss 50C and 50D of the Limitation Act and understood that it was necessary for the plaintiff to bring a claim against an alleged tortfeasor within three years of the commencement of the discoverability period. He was first instructed by the plaintiff on 29 August 2012, who was then still in hospital.
2. On 10 October 2012, Mr Nelson and Samara visited the plaintiff at The Hills Private Hospital. As referred to above, Mr Nelson had brought a Motor Accident Personal Injury Claim Form to be filled in by the plaintiff. Most of the form was filled in by Samara, who asked the plaintiff to answer the questions asked in the form, before filling in the answers given by him. She inserted her email address on the form. The plaintiff dictated to Samara the description of the accident which is set out above. The plaintiff identified the relevant vehicle as a Linde forklift. He identified two witnesses, Mr Walters and Mr Connell, whom he described as having "previously reported the fork faulty". The plaintiff admitted that he knew that, in order to make a claim in respect of a motor vehicle accident, he needed to establish either that the driver of another vehicle was at fault or that there was something wrong with the vehicle he was driving. A few details on the form were filled in by Mr Nelson, who was present while Samara was filling in the form on behalf of the plaintiff.
3. On 24 October 2012 Mr Nelson conferred for about an hour with Mr Cranitch, whom he had instructed on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr Nelson could not recall what Mr Cranitch advised at the conference. However, he recorded the following: "Attended today (24 October 2012) for conference with Mr Cranitch SC. Discussed operation of Motor Accidents Compensation Act Scheme and definition of motor accident. Alternative strategy for claim against employer and Linde discussed. Discussed appropriate specialists to eventually qualify in relation to quantum. 1hr"
4. Mr Nelson confirmed that the reference to a claim against Linde was a reference to a common law claim for damages in negligence against Linde.

The commencement of proceedings against Nestlé

1. On 18 March 2015, Mr Nelson commenced these proceedings by filing a statement of claim which named Nestlé as the sole defendant. The statement of claim bore Mr Nelson's certification pursuant to s 347 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) that "there are reasonable grounds for believing on the basis of provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law that the claim for damages in these proceedings has reasonable prospects of success." Section 347 applied to the proceedings as they were commenced prior to 1 July 2015, being the commencement date of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW). Its statutory successor is cl 4(2) of Sch 2 to the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act.
2. Mr Nelson denied that, as at the date of filing, he had formed the view that the plaintiff's injury was caused by the fault of Linde. He said that he had formed the view that the forklift was defective and that, accordingly, Nestlé, its owner, was liable to be sued under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. He confirmed in cross-examination that he would not have advised the plaintiff to make a claim in tort against Nestlé in its capacity as his employer because future medical expenses cannot be awarded to an employee who makes a claim in tort against his or her employer.
3. Mr Nelson accepted that, as at the time of filing the statement of claim, he was aware that there was a contract between Nestlé and Linde pursuant to which Linde agreed to maintain the forklifts used by Nestlé. When asked to identify the deficiencies in his knowledge which led him not to add Linde as a party to the proceedings when he filed the statement of claim against Nestlé, Mr Nelson said that he lacked the particularity of the communication between Nestlé and Linde regarding forklift 432.

The filing of the cross-claim by Nestlé against Linde

1. Mr Nelson agreed that Nestlé filed a cross-claim against Linde on 18 April 2016 and that he became aware of it around that time. Mr Nelson also agreed that the solicitors for Nestlé were putting pressure on him to add Linde as a defendant but said that he did not accede to the pressure because he was concerned that there was insufficient evidence to permit his "legal team" (he, Mr Cranitch and junior counsel, initially Nicholas Broadbent, and subsequently Mr Hickey) to make the decision to do so.
2. In cross-examination, Mr Nelson rejected the proposition that the plaintiff could simply repeat the allegations which Nestlé had made in the cross-claim in an amended statement of claim which added Linde as a defendant. He noted that Nestlé's claim against Linde was based on the maintenance contract between them and the correlative duty of care which was owed by reason of the contract.
3. On 20 June 2017, Mr Cranitch and Mr Hickey (junior counsel) gave advice in a written memorandum that there was "no case for the plaintiff to pursue against [Linde]."
4. Prior to 14 December 2018, Nestlé served the following evidence in support of its cross-claim against Linde: a statement of Mr Connell dated 10 December 2018; a statement of Brett Lloyd dated 7 December 2018; and an expert report of Mr Hickey on liability dated 13 November 2018. Mr Nelson briefed Mr Cranitch and junior counsel, Mr Hickey, with this evidence.
5. On 14 December 2018, Mr Cranitch and Mr Hickey advised Mr Nelson orally that Linde ought be added to the proceedings as a second defendant. According to Mr Nelson, the advice "outlined the significance of the evidence [recently served by Nestlé against Linde]." As a result of this evidence, Mr Nelson considered, for the first time, that a common law claim against Linde had reasonable prospects of success. He explained the importance of the recently served evidence as follows: "… it conveyed a suggestion that Lloyd had informed the technician employed by Linde of matters beyond those referred to in the tag-out, which simply indicated that there was a speed sensor issue, which would have informed Mr Raad to take more steps than simply responding in accordance with what was in the tag-out. … Until Mr Lloyd's statement had been served upon the plaintiff in this matter by [Nestlé], the case, as best as I can describe it, involved no basis for a suggestion that Mr Raad had done anything other than attend to dealing with the issue as described to him in … the tag that was given to him."

The plaintiff's application for leave to add Linde as a defendant

1. On 1 April 2019, Mr Nelson filed a notice of motion for leave to file a further amended statement of claim to add Linde as the second defendant. The motion was returnable on 16 April 2019, at which time it was listed for hearing before Davies J on 7 June 2019. Neither defendant opposed the application and the order was duly made. On 17 June 2019 Mr Nelson filed a further amended statement of claim which added Linde as a second defendant.
2. I note that it was not argued by the plaintiff that Linde, by not opposing its joinder as a party to the plaintiff's claim, had waived its right to plead the limitation defence or that the amendment would date back to the filing of the original statement of claim.

Conclusion on the limitation defence

1. A cause of action is "discoverable" within the meaning of s 50C of the Limitation Act if the plaintiff has either actual or constructive knowledge of certain facts: that is, if the plaintiff knew or ought to have known (assessed objectively) of certain facts: Baker-Morrison v State of New South Wales (2009) 74 NSWLR 454; [2009] NSWCA 35 (Baker-Morrison) at [25] and [41] (Basten JA, Ipp and Macfarlan JJA agreeing).
2. Some facts, such as whether a putative defendant has caused a particular injury or death, will require an evaluative judgment, which is ascertainable by legal assistance: Baker-Morrison at [27] (Basten JA, Ipp and Macfarlan JJA agreeing); see also Baggs v University of Sydney Union [2013] NSWCA 451 at [13] (Meagher JA, Macfarlan and Hoeben JJA agreeing). Although the plaintiff knew that he had been seriously injured, the determination of whether Linde was at fault required an evaluative judgment. Section 50C of the Limitation Act is to be read consistently with s 347 of the Legal Profession Act (and its statutory successor, cl 4 of Sch 2 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act) as there is no basis to displace the presumption that two laws enacted by the same legislature are intended to work together: Ferdinands v Commissioner for Public Employment (2006) 225 CLR 130; [2006] HCA 5 at [48]-[49] (Gummow and Hayne JJ). Thus, s 50C cannot be read as requiring a statement of claim to be filed in circumstances where a solicitor could not properly certify that the proceedings had reasonable prospects of success.
3. The plaintiff's legal advisers only became aware of the relevant facts, which enabled the evaluative judgment to be made that Linde was at fault, in December 2018 when they received the statements of Mr Connell and Mr Lloyd in which Mr Connell set out what he told Mr Lloyd and Mr Lloyd set out what he told Mr Raad. Had Mr Raad been aware of the full extent of the issue with forklift 432 then it would have been insufficient for him to conduct routine service and maintenance and return the forklift to service, notwithstanding that he had been unable to replicate, much less remedy, the over-speeding fault described by Mr Connell. Linde has not identified any basis on which it could be said that the plaintiff or his legal advisers knew, or ought to have known, of this communication earlier than December 2018.

Liability of Linde to the plaintiff

1. Because the plaintiff is someone who could be expected to be within the reasonable contemplation of Linde when repairing forklifts which employees such as the plaintiff were to drive, Linde owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care in repairing Nestlé's forklifts, including forklift 432.
2. In substance, the plaintiff alleged that Linde failed to take reasonable care to inspect and repair forklift 432 after it was tagged out by Mr Connell on 10 August 2012 and that it ought not to have allowed forklift 432 to be returned to service before identifying and rectifying the cause of the over-speeding issue. The plaintiff also alleged that Linde was negligent in not detecting the over-speeding problem in forklift 432 before it occurred. The plaintiff also relied on the principle of res ipsa loquitur (meaning the thing speaks for itself, which in the present context meant that the fault in forklift 432 was itself evidence of Linde's failure to take reasonable care).
3. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that Mr Raad was privy to any further knowledge about the defect in forklift 432 when he repaired it on 13 August 2012 than that with which Linde had been provided by "Tony" when the call was made at 2.36pm ("machine speed is playing up"). The shorthand description, while accurate, was incomplete since it missed two crucial integers: that forklift 432 was not only accelerating and decelerating erratically, but that it was also over-speeding. These two factors were what elevated the "speed playing up" issue to one which ought to have led to the forklift being taken out of service unless and until the defect could be both replicated and rectified. It was known to both Nestlé and Linde that over-speeding or erratic movement of a forklift would subject the driver to the risk of becoming dislodged from the forklift, given the lack of restraint or suitable seating in the forklifts and the driver's orientation perpendicular to the direction of travel which made it more difficult for the driver to brace.
4. In light of the information which Mr Raad was given, he has not shown to be negligent. Having been informed that the speed of forklift 432 was playing up, he tested it and fixed the battery sensor (which could account for the variability in speed) as well as the mast reach sensors. When he test-drove forklift 432, he did not detect any issue and was able to ascertain that the battery sensor and the mast reach sensor were working normally.

Contributory negligence

1. Section 5R of the Civil Liability Act provides that the principles which are applicable in determining whether a person has been negligent also apply to determining whether the person who has suffered harm has been contributorily negligent in failing to take precautions against the risk of that harm. As s 5R is in Division 8 of the Civil Liability Act, s 3B(2) of the Civil Liability Act makes this provision applicable to motor accidents. However, s 138 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act also applies to the plaintiff's claim against Nestlé (and therefore any deduction for the plaintiff's contributory negligence) and therefore, s 138 also needs to be considered. For present purposes, the relevant sub-sections of s 138 are s 138(3) (which requires damages to be reduced by such percentage as the court thinks just and equitable) and s 138(4) (that the court must state its reasons for determining the particular percentage).
2. Notwithstanding s 5R of the Civil Liability Act, Nestlé did not make submissions on the risk of harm. Nor did its written submissions contain any submission relating to contributory negligence, except to indicate reliance on Linde's submissions. Linde did not address contributory negligence. Accordingly, in the event that the allegation of contributory negligence was actually pressed and needs to be determined, it is necessary to address the particulars of contributory negligence provided in Nestlé's defence as follows: "i. Failing to take proper care for his own safety, having regard to his skill and experience. ii. Failing to keep any or any proper lookout. iii. Failing to drive the vehicle in a safe and proper manner. iv. Failing to pay proper attention to the task he was undertaking. v. Failing to operate the vehicle in the correct manner by utilising his left foot on the left accelerator pedal and sitting properly on the driver's seat in the position in which it was designed to be used."
3. I am not satisfied that any of these particulars has been made out. Nestlé's allegation that the plaintiff was not sitting properly in his seat was not put to him and I take it to have been abandoned. The plaintiff applied the hydraulic brake because he was concerned about the speed and erratic behaviour of forklift 432 and the proximity of Mr Walters and Mr Nguyen, who were approaching the main path, on which forklift 432 was travelling. The plaintiff applied the brake to avert further harm, to others or to himself, and to prevent a collision. That the forces created by the application of the brake, in combination with the speed of the forklift, dislodged him from his seat was not something which he could reasonably be expected to have ascertained in advance.

Nestlé's cross-claim against Linde

1. Nestlé put its cross-claim against Linde on several bases: that Linde was negligent in failing to remedy the fault in forklift 432; that it was negligent in failing to advise Nestlé that it ought to have modified the forklifts to install seatbelts or guard rails; and that it was negligent in failing to adequately maintain the forklift so as to cause a spontaneous malfunctioning which resulted in the plaintiff's accident. The first and third allegations will be addressed together.

Alleged negligent repair and maintenance

1. Nestlé relied on an implied term in its maintenance contract with Linde that Linde would exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence when carrying out the maintenance, service and repair of Nestlé's forklifts. Such a term was implied by operation of law, as confirmed in Astley v Austrust Ltd at [47] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ), which was decided after, and can be seen to be consistent with, Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 at 347 (Mason J); [1982] HCA 24. Thus, it can be inferred that such a term is reasonable and equitable; is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract; is so obvious that it "goes without saying"; is capable of clear expression and does not contradict any express term of the contract.
2. Nestlé accepted, for the purposes of the cross-claim, that the fault which caused the plaintiff's accident was present when forklift 432 was serviced by Mr Raad on 13 August 2012. For the reasons given in relation to the plaintiff's claim against Linde, I am satisfied of this matter. I am also prepared to accept (since it must follow) that Linde failed to remedy the defect in forklift 432 that was present on 10 and 13 August 2012 and which caused the plaintiff's accident on 16 August 2012.
3. However, in order to determine whether there was any failure on the part of Linde to exercise reasonable care, it is necessary to address what Linde knew at the time Mr Raad was asked to repair forklift 432. For the reasons given above, all he was told was that the machine speed was "playing up". He detected a potential cause (a defect in the battery sensor) and fixed another defect. He test drove forklift 432. For the reasons given above in relation to the plaintiff's claim against Linde, Linde was not in breach of either the implied term of the contract or the correlative duty of care which it owed to Nestlé in so far as the repair of forklift 432 is concerned.
4. Nestlé also alleged that the defect which caused the plaintiff's accident ought to have been detected and repaired had Linde exercised reasonable care in maintaining the forklifts.

Alleged negligent failure to advise

1. Nestlé also alleged that Linde owed a duty to advise it about the need to install seatbelts or guard rails on the forklifts to make them safer for the forklift operators.
2. Even assuming that Linde had owed such a duty to Nestlé, the evidence does not reveal that Linde's knowledge about the safety aspects of the forklifts was superior to Nestlé's. Linde had devised and manufactured new forklifts which were fitted with seatbelts. Nestlé decided to acquire the new forklifts which it had assessed would be safer than its existing forklifts. Notwithstanding the 2008 Risk Assessment, Nestlé deferred replacing its fleet for the following four years until after the plaintiff's accident. Had Linde recommended the new forklifts on the basis that the new features would avert the risk of the driver being dislodged from the forklift, I infer that Nestlé would simply have told Linde that it was aware of the relative risk (having assessed it in 2008) and was prepared to take the risk rather than replace the forklifts or make enquiries about the modifications to its existing forklifts which could ameliorate the risk posed by the lack of contouring or restraint in the existing forklifts.
3. There is some analogy between the cross-claim in the present case and an action against a medical professional for failure to advise of a particular treatment. In Wallace v Kam, the High Court dismissed an appeal by a patient against a doctor in circumstances where the patient was prepared to accept the risk of the very consequence that ensued (neurapraxia). The Court (French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ) said at [39]: "[Mr Wallace] is not to be compensated for the occurrence of physical injury the risk of which he was prepared to accept."
4. In the present case, the evidence established that Nestlé was prepared to accept the risk that a driver would be dislodged from a forklift due to lack of restraint provided in the cabin of the forklift. Linde is not liable for this choice, which was within the power of Nestlé to make. Just as Nestlé was entitled to reject Linde's advice to replace the power module in the LDC of forklift 432 in July 2012, it was entitled to reject advice that Linde gave along the lines of its 2008 Risk Assessment. Although there is no evidence that Linde gave advice, the evidence was that any failure to give the advice was not causative of the harm suffered because Nestlé would probably not have taken the advice.

Linde's construction argument

1. Although it is not strictly necessary to decide the point because of the conclusion expressed above, I note that Mr McCulloch put orally that Nestlé's claim for contribution from Linde did not fall within s 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) because the plaintiff's claim against Linde was statute-barred. Section 5(1)(c) provides as follows: "5 Proceedings against and contribution between joint and several tort-feasors (1) Where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not): … (c) any tort-feasor liable in respect of that damage may recover contribution from any other tort-feasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tort-feasor or otherwise …"
2. Mr McCulloch submitted that if the plaintiff's claim against Linde was statute-barred, Linde is not a tortfeasor who "would if sued" have been liable because Linde has been sued and (on the basis) would not be liable. Mr McCulloch's submission must be rejected on the basis of Brambles Constructions Pty Limited v Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213; [1966] HCA 3 where the High Court held that s 5(1)(c) ought be read as if the words "at any time" were inserted after the words "if sued", at 220 (Barwick CJ, McTiernan J agreeing), 221-222 (Windeyer J) and 225 (Owen J). Thus, even if the plaintiff's claim against Linde was statute-barred (contrary to my finding set out above), it would not follow that Nestlé's claim against Linde was statute-barred.

Conclusion

1. For the reasons given above, Linde is entitled to judgment on the cross-claim brought by Nestlé.

Damages

1. The purpose of an award of damages in tort is to put a person in the position he or she would have been but for the tort. The measure of damages in tort has been modified by legislation. The assessment of the damages for which Nestlé is liable to the plaintiff is modified by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act and the Civil Liability Act (in so far as it applies to motor accidents as provided for in s 3B(2) of the Civil Liability Act).
2. The parties informed me that they would prefer that I assess damages against Nestlé and then indicate apportionment by reference to a percentage, rather than assess damages separately by reference to the Civil Liability Act. I understood the reason for this preference to be that s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) needs to be factored into any apportionment and that the process is not without difficulty. The parties indicated that they were confident that agreement could be reached on actual figures if I adopted the approach set out above.
3. As I am not persuaded that Linde is liable, either on the plaintiff's claim or on the cross-claim, this process would appear to be unnecessary. However, there are some figures, such as past out-of-pocket expenses which depend on the date on which the judgment is delivered (as the workers compensation insurer will, as I understand it, continue to pay out-of-pocket expenses and workers compensation until the date of judgment) and others which are difficult to calculate without further information (such as the Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 439; [1981] HCA 41 component). In these circumstances, it would be useful if the parties could calculate the final quantum, in light of these reasons, taking into account such matters.
4. I note that the parties have tendered a plethora of medical reports, each of which has been considered. It has been of substantial assistance that the occupational therapists (Kate Dawson, Susan Arnold and Amanda McLaughlin) have met in conclave, prepared a joint report and given concurrent evidence. The rehabilitation physicians (Dr Buckley and Associate Professor Jones) have also met in conclave and produced a joint report, which I have considered with all the other evidence. As it proved difficult for the parties to arrange to have them give evidence concurrently, the parties agreed that neither would be required to attend court for cross-examination and that their reports and the joint report would be admitted into evidence.

The injuries sustained in the accident

1. The plaintiff suffered a degloving injury to his left lower leg which resulted in a below-knee amputation. He aggravated degenerative changes in his spine. He also sustained an avulsion fracture of his left elbow which has had a resultant effect on his shoulder. As a result of these injuries and their consequences he has suffered both post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression. He continues to suffer physical restrictions in the form of impaired mobility, heavy stump sweating (which reduces prosthetic efficiency) and reduced range of movement of the left elbow. These restrictions are permanent.
2. He required a substantial amount of hospitalisation for treatment, surgery and rehabilitation. As referred to above, the plaintiff was a patient at Westmead Hospital from 16 August until 21 August 2012. He was treated for pain with morphine and ketamine. On 21 August 2012 he was transferred to Norwest Private Hospital where he remained as an in-patient for about three weeks. While he was there, his left leg was amputated below the knee. On 12 September 2012 he was transferred to The Hills Private Hospital for rehabilitation. He received treatment which included physiotherapy treatment, as well as treatment for his left elbow which he had also injured in the accident. On 21 November 2012, he was ultimately discharged and returned home.

General damages

1. Non-economic loss is to be assessed in accordance with Part 5.3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. It was common ground that the plaintiff's degree of permanent impairment exceeds the 10% threshold in s 131. It was also common ground that the maximum amount that could be awarded for damages for non-economic loss under s 134 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act is presently $590,000.
2. The plaintiff sustained very significant injuries in the accident. He was subjected to trauma at the time, the effects of which continue. At the time he was injured, he took pride in his job, his willingness to do overtime, his capacity to be the sole financial provider for his family and the home which he and his wife had created for their children. He was a gregarious family man who regularly entertained and took an active part in family life, to the extent to which his working hours permitted. He had limited activities beyond his family and his work. A favourite activity was to walk with his wife around Stanhope Gardens. They walked up to 7km for exercise and recreation.
3. The immediate effect of the accident was devastating for the plaintiff, both physically and mentally. In a statement given to an investigator dated 29 October 2012, the plaintiff (who was still an in-patient at The Hills Private Hospital), said: "My family and I are finding it very difficult to manage at the moment. My wife comes to see me each day, but still has to take my kids to and from school as well as care for the house and children. My wife and kids are finding It very hard, it is making everyone miserable. My 18 year old son is avoiding me, he won't come to visit me here and when I get to go home to visit he won't be there. He tells my wife he just doesn't want to see me like that. … The injury makes you feel different, it has affected my morale, I am very depressed because of my injury, seeing people looking me at differently and dealing with you differently. I used to be a very strong man, I was the provider for my family, but now my income has dropped and my family look at me differently. I felt successful before and now everything has changed."
4. The plaintiff's wife described her husband as being, pre-accident, a "confident" person and "a most energetic and attentive husband and father" who "took great pride in our home being a place where extended family would be invited for barbecues and gatherings". She described him as being, post-accident, "a very different person to the husband and father [she] knew before the accident." In a statement given on 31 August 2013, about a year after the accident, she said: "Of course, the family all love [the plaintiff] very dearly, but he is a very different person and is quick to have an argument or lash out verbally. [The plaintiff] has smashed objects in the home out of frustration on occasions since the accident."

Discount for vicissitudes

1. Amounts intended to compensate for the future are subject to a discount for vicissitudes in accordance with Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485 at 497 (Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and Gummow JJ); [1995] HCA 53. Although, this Court has a discretion to select the % discount for vicissitudes (Chung v Anderson [2004] NSWCA 321 at [81] (McColl JA, Santow JA and Cripps AJA agreeing)), I am not satisfied that there is a basis to depart from the orthodox figure of 15%. I reject Mr Cranitch's submission that the discount is built into the multipliers and that there ought be no further discount.

Damages for lost earning capacity and associated amounts

Past economic loss (earnings, superannuation etc)

1. There is a slight disagreement in the amount for past economic loss. Counsel assured me that this would be agreed in due course. The difference between the figures is small (the plaintiff's figure is $504,274.15; the defendants' figure is $507,713). I assume that there will be agreement on this figure as well as the component for Fox v Wood and loss of past superannuation.

Future economic loss

1. Section 126(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act provides that a court cannot award damages for future economic loss unless the plaintiff discharges the onus of satisfying the court that the assumptions about future earning capacity accord with the plaintiff's likely future circumstances but for the injury. The amount is required to be adjusted for the percentage possibility that the events might have occurred but for the injury: s 126(2). The court is required to state the assumptions on which the award is based and the relevant percentage, if any, by which the damages were adjusted: s 126(3).
2. The plaintiff claims a total figure for future economic loss of $860,916 which is calculated by multiplying $1,343.45 net per week by 555, being the 5% multiplier, as prescribed by s 127 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act) for 15 years (reflecting the most likely future circumstance that the plaintiff would have continued to work until the age of 67), to give $745,614.75 and adding a figure for future superannuation of $115,301.25 (before any discount is applied for vicissitudes). The differences in the base figures (for earnings and superannuation) derive from the plaintiff's contention that he has no residual earning capacity and the defendants' position that the plaintiff's earning capacity is in the order of 30% of his pre-accident earning capacity.
3. The plaintiff's likely future circumstances but for the injury are that he would have continued to work full-time, including overtime, as a forklift driver. Since he was 20, it is the only occupation he has pursued and he has pursued it both consistently and continuously. Nestlé did not submit that the plaintiff would not have continued to work until the age of 67 years. Nor did it contend that there would have been changes to his hours of work or duties in the future which would have led to a loss of income.
4. Dr Buckley and Associate Professor Jones agreed and recorded in their joint conclave report that the plaintiff was unemployable on the open labour market.
5. The defendants' contention that the plaintiff has a residual earning capacity derives from two sources: first, the opinions of the occupational therapists, who relied on a report of Ms Stellen, which was not tendered, in which it was said that the plaintiff could do a sedentary job for 20 hours a week as he has virtually unlimited tolerance for sitting and can drive. I reject this opinion on the basis that it is not supported by the evidence.

Damages for care reasonably required as a result of the accident

1. Section 141B(2) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act provides that no compensation is to be awarded for attendant care services if the services would have been provided to the person even if the person had not been injured in the accident. No compensation is to be awarded for such services if the services are provided, or to be provided, for at least 6 hours a week and for a period of at least 6 months: s 141B(3).
2. The effect of s 141B(2) is that it also is necessary to examine what services were provided to the plaintiff by his wife before the accident, since these will not be compensable if they would have been provided to him even if he had not been injured.

Pre-accident household duties

1. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff's children were all still undergoing their education and did not assist with household chores. The plaintiff and his wife placed great store on their children's education and preferred for them to spend their time studying rather than helping around the house. Their aim (which was fulfilled) was for each of their children to graduate with a degree from a university. As referred to above, the plaintiff worked long hours to support his family. His wife worked at home, running the household and bringing up their children. This resulted in a division of labour between the couple prior to the accident, where the plaintiff's wife did most of the housework relating to the inside of the house. She also did the shopping although at times he helped her with the heavy lifting.
2. Despite his long working hours, the plaintiff spent about eight hours a week doing things inside the house, principally vacuuming and cleaning the bathrooms. Because of the number of people living in the house he used to do the vacuuming twice a week for a period of 45 minutes to an hour, and clean the toilets (of which there were three in the house) every couple of days for a period of an hour to an hour and a half and the showers every three days. Every 4-6 months, he and his wife would spring clean the house together and wash the windows and the curtains. This would take them about a day. The services provided by the plaintiff were for the benefit of the household as a whole and would not have been required at that level had he lived there by himself, or just with his wife.
3. The plaintiff was also responsible for outdoor work, such as mowing and gardening. Before the accident, the plaintiff spent about two hours a week working in the garden. As with his indoor tasks, these tasks benefited not only the plaintiff but also the whole family.

The post-accident period

1. For the two years after the accident, the plaintiff's wife drove her husband "everywhere", including to medical appointments. She would spend at least three hours a week driving him around.
2. About two years after the accident, the plaintiff began to drive again. In early 2018, the plaintiff's wife's back became sore. During this period, the plaintiff's son, Matri, helped his father to wash himself and also helped him to shave once every three days. Matri was sure that his father was capable of shaving himself but said that he had to be encouraged to do so because he was "so withdrawn and disinterested in every aspect of life". In her mother's absence, Samara would visit the plaintiff at the family home every morning for up to three hours and would clean the house and take meals to her father. At that time, according to Samara the plaintiff was "devastated emotionally" and "not functioning very well at all".

The plaintiff's present capacity to care for himself and perform household duties

1. The plaintiff is able to make himself a cup of tea and toast for breakfast and sandwiches for lunch. However, he is not comfortable doing basic cooking because he does not want to stand for a prolonged period and subject himself to the risk of falling. He accepted in cross-examination that he could sit on a higher stool and work at the stove or at the kitchen bench.
2. The plaintiff accepted that he could shave himself and go to the toilet without assistance.
3. In order to calculate damages for past care, some differentiation needs to be made between the immediate post-discharge period and later periods when the plaintiff had become more accustomed to his prosthesis and to his disabilities generally. The dispute between the parties is as to the level of the plaintiff's needs. The plaintiff's family gave evidence as to the care which was provided, the quantum of which was estimated. The defendants relied on the evidence of occupational therapists who opined that the plaintiff's needs were fewer and that he required less assistance. They applied the principle, which they understood to underpin their training in occupational therapy, that it is preferable to encourage the injured person to become as independent as possible, rather than to enable the injured person to become more dependent than necessary, by providing additional care at a level beyond that which is reasonably necessary.
4. The expert occupational therapists differ as to the amount of care reasonably required. Ms Arnold and Ms McLaughlin considered that the plaintiff's family had provided him with care which he could have provided for himself and, accordingly, which he did not reasonably require. They considered that the plaintiff was, or could have been, had he applied himself, independent in self-care within a year of the accident and that the only allowance which needed to be made was to allow an amount for heavy tasks and outside work. By contrast, Ms Dawson considered that the plaintiff needed, and will continue to need, care at a relatively high level (two hours a day).
5. As to the plaintiff's future care needs, there is also the question of whether the plaintiff's wife will continue to provide his care needs or whether this is, having regard to her own health issues, unreasonable and unsustainable. There is also an issue about whether the marriage will endure, having regard to the undoubted stresses and strains placed on it by the accident and its consequences.

Past out of pocket expenses

1. It was common ground that the total past out of pocket expenses were $444,357.61 and that this amount had been paid in full by the workers compensation insurer and would be required to be repaid from the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not incurred the cost of any out of pocket expenses since the accident.

Future out of pocket expenses

1. The task of determining the plaintiff's future out of pocket expenses has been assisted by the joint reports of the experts.

Future medical treatment required

1. Dr Buckley and Associate Professor Jones agreed that the plaintiff reasonably requires the following: 1. Six consultations per year with his general practitioner for pain management; 2. Two consultations per year with a consultant physician in rehabilitation medicine for limb fitting; 3. Three reviews per year with his prosthetist for prosthetic adjustment; and 4. Three botulinum toxin injections per year for stump sweating.
2. With the following exception, the experts agreed that these items comprised the total treatment required. Dr Buckley considered the plaintiff would be likely to require four minor skin grafting procedures and one major skin grafting procedure at some stage in the future. Associate Professor Jones considered this to be unlikely. Associate Professor Jones's opinion would appear to be based on the finding that the plaintiff had an "excellent stump as of 15/11/2015". As the experts were not cross-examined and did not give concurrent evidence, it is difficult to determine this dispute. As Dr Buckley is well qualified to express the view, I consider that the plaintiff has established that there is at least some prospect that he will require these treatments. Associate Professor Jones's view would appear to be based on information which is historical (albeit based on observations made more than three years after the accident) and may not reflect the current position. The cost of the treatments referred to above appears in Dr Buckley's reports and elsewhere. I propose to quantify damages for these items by awarding a buffer.
3. They also opined that the plaintiff needed a walking prosthesis similar to his current artificial leg with socket modifications two or three times a year. They recommended that the prosthesis be replaced every three to five years. On this basis, I consider it to be reasonable to allow for replacement every four years.
4. I note that the plaintiff has been advised that, if he were to have another operation, he may be able to achieve a better fit between the stump and his prosthesis. He does not want to undergo another operation on his leg. It was not suggested that this decision was unreasonable.

Future psychiatric or psychological treatment

1. The evidence established that the plaintiff continue to see Dr Nguyen, a psychiatrist for treatment for chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression. The plaintiff's claim (as included in the composite table handed up by Mr O'Dowd) was the cost of consulting with his psychologist or psychiatrist at least four times annually for three years and thereafter twice annually. The cost of each consultation is $365, or $1,460.00 per year. The relevant calculation is $28.08 (per week) x 145.6 (5% multiplier for 3 years) = $4,088.45. The cost per year for the years thereafter is $730. The plaintiff calculated his claim as follows: $14.04 (per week) x 809.6 (5% multiplier for the remainder of the plaintiff's life expectancy) x 0.864 (deferral multiplier) = $9,820.90. The plaintiff claimed $13,909.35, being the sum of $4,088.45 and $9,820.90.
2. Nestlé accepted that the amount of $13,909.35 was reasonable but submitted that it ought be discounted by 15% for vicissitudes, to result in an award for this head of $11,823.
3. However, notwithstanding the claim for that amount, the plaintiff submitted (as indicated in its table) that the plaintiff's present and foreseeable requirements for psychiatric treatment significantly exceeded the claim in terms of frequency and that the workers compensation insurer no longer accepted Dr Nguyen's recommendations.
4. This Court is not bound by what the workers compensation insurer has agreed to pay in the past for such treatment. However, the Court ought not award more than a plaintiff's claim since this would amount to a denial of procedural fairness to the defendants. In these circumstances, I accept the plaintiff's claim of $13,909.35.

Other future needs

1. In their joint report, the occupational therapists agreed that it would be reasonable to allow for the plaintiff to be educated to a total of 10 hours on home modifications at the rate of $193.99 (being the rate for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)). They agreed that a 2-hour review every 5 years was also reasonable.
2. It was agreed that the plaintiff takes Lyrica for pain. The frequency of prescriptions is also agreed. The plaintiff claims a cost of $70.55 per prescription, which I am told equates to the amount paid by the workers compensation insurer for each prescription. Mr O'Dowd submitted that Lyrica was available for purchase at Chemist Warehouse for $20 per prescription. Although there was a prospect of agreement, I am yet to be informed of any agreement. In these circumstances, I propose to defer making a finding. The parties can inform me of any agreement when short minutes are prepared to reflect the findings in orders to be made by the Court.

Home modifications

1. Before the accident the plaintiff shared the main bedroom upstairs with his wife. After his discharge from The Hills Private Hospital, a bed was set up for him in the main lounge room but he was not comfortable there because it was in a public space, so he moved to the garage and slept there instead. He has difficulty navigating the stairs in the house, which also makes it easier to sleep in the garage.
2. There are two bathrooms upstairs and one toilet downstairs. The plaintiff manages to get up the stairs to have a shower by sitting down and manoeuvring himself on his buttocks on the stairs as he considers this to be safer than trying to navigate the stairs with his prosthesis or crutches. Wearing the prosthesis on stairs makes the plaintiff tired and renders him more susceptible to slipping and falling. The parties agreed that it was reasonable that a downstairs bathroom be installed in the plaintiff's house so that he would not need to go upstairs for that purpose. The agreed cost of the bathroom is $60,000.

Other claims

1. The plaintiff has made claims for damages in respect of particular heads which I am not satisfied ought form part of the award. For example, his legal representatives have claimed the cost of gym membership in the absence of evidence that the plaintiff would ever take up such membership. They also claimed the cost of a high-definition silicone prosthesis although the experts did not support such an item. There was a claim for "major stump reconstruction" although the plaintiff's evidence was that he would not be prepared to have such an operation. To the extent to which a claim which has been made does not appear in the table below, it has been rejected, either because I am not satisfied that it is reasonably necessary or I am not satisfied that the plaintiff would be prepared to undertake the activity, undergo the treatment or use the device.

Summary of figures

1. It is convenient to express my assessment on damages in a table, which replicates the form of the tables provided by the parties. The figures are calculated on the basis that the plaintiff is 52 years old. He has a remaining life expectancy of 32.33 years and, but for the accident, would have retired at 67 years of age. The 5% multiplier for the plaintiff's life expectancy is 845 and for his retirement age is 555 (being 15 years). I understand these figures to be common ground.
2. Where the basis of the award is an agreed figure, this is indicated in the table. Head of damages and, where applicable, basis of calculation of award Figure awarded (rounded) Non-Economic Loss $400,000 Past Out of Pocket Expenses
3. Medical expenses and domestic assistance paid for by the workers compensation insurer, EML as at 12 February 2021. $261,022.78 (agreed)
4. Aids paid for by the workers compensation insurer, EML as at 12 February 2021. $174,546.30 (agreed)

Costs

1. I have not heard the parties on costs. Accordingly, I am unaware of any reason why the usual rule that costs follow the event ought not apply in accordance with r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). For this reason, it is appropriate to reserve costs and to grant liberty to the parties to apply to re-list the matter for argument on costs, if required. Alternatively, the question of costs can be dealt with on the papers.

Orders

1. For the reasons given above, I make the following orders: 1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant. 2. Judgment for the second defendant on the plaintiff's claim. 3. Judgment for the cross-defendant (second defendant) on the cross-claim. 4. Reserve costs. 5. Direct the parties to calculate the judgment sum in accordance with the reasons set out above and forward such calculation to my Associate within 7 days. 6. Grant liberty to apply to restore the matter for further argument on the judgment sum, or the appropriate costs orders.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 07 April 2021