Davies v Walon Ltd

A claimant must prove the alleged accident mechanism and causative injury on the balance of probabilities. Where the evidence shows that a proposed equipment failure is theoretically possible but highly remote, and the competing explanation is more probable, the claim fails on causation. A finding that an injury occurred at work does not establish negligence or causation. The adequacy of training and the scope of any reasonable safety instruction must be assessed on the evidence. In this case, the alleged sudden dropping of a vehicle-transporter deck was not proved, the brain haemorrhage was more probably spontaneous than traumatic, and the employer was not liable.

The claimant, an HGV transporter driver employed by the defendant, alleged that he struck his head while securing a vehicle on the upper deck of a transporter. He contended that the deck had dropped by approximately 35 mm because a locking pawl was precariously engaged, causing the vehicle to bounce and strike his head. He later suffered a serious intracerebral haemorrhage and brain injury.

The court was directed to determine liability, contributory negligence and causation. The central issues were whether the accident occurred in the alleged manner, whether any breach of duty caused the head injury, and whether the alleged impact caused the brain haemorrhage.

1. Alleged accident mechanism. The claimant had probably struck his head while attempting to attach a securing belt. However, the evidence did not establish that this resulted from a sudden drop of the transporter deck. The engineering evidence supporting precarious engagement of the locking pawl was substantially undermined by the absence of damage, maintenance problems or later incidents, and by the dynamic forces generated when the vehicle was loaded.
2. Negligence. Since the alleged deck drop was not proved, no negligence arose on that basis. Had it been necessary to decide breach, the training given by the defendant was detailed and comprehensive. It was unreasonable and unsustainable to contend that the claimant should have been expressly instructed not to place his head beneath, or close to, the vehicle sill. There was no material difference between the relevant training documents.
3. Medical causation. The court preferred the evidence that the intracerebral haemorrhage was spontaneous rather than traumatic. The absence of external or radiological signs of trauma, the delayed development of serious symptoms, the claimant’s ability to continue working and drive home, and the possible destruction of an underlying vascular malformation supported that conclusion.
4. Disposition. The claimant failed to establish the alleged mechanism, breach or causation on the balance of probabilities. The claim was dismissed.

This was a first-instance trial. By an order of District Judge Griffith dated 21 February 2018, the issues were limited to liability, contributory negligence and causation.