News, Top Story

CIE Limited Challenges High Court Ruling which Orders it to Pay $99, 350 in Damages ⚖️

Image of a gavel
.

LOCAL contractors- Construction & Industrial Equipment [CIE], has objected to a High Court ruling that implicates the company for injuries sustained by an employee during an incident that occurred on the work plant six years, six months ago.

CIE Limited is denying that its culpable for the injuries suffered by Keegan Charles, a former employee, and has resorted to taking legal action by filing an appeal with the Court of Appeal.

In the lead up to this latest application, Charles, through his legal representative, had filed for compensation and the case appeared before High Court Judge Justice Rohan A Phillip and judgment handed down on October 4, 2023.

Attorney Tiris Frederick appeared for the Claimant- Keegan Charles, while Leslie Prospere and Megan Du Boulay-Lee represented the Defendants – CIE Limited and Kurt Clearson.

The case stems from an incident that occurred on 8th March 2017.  In the previous matter, Charles, claimed he had been instructed by his then supervisor Kim Khodra (since deceased) to operate a wagon drill (“the Drill Rig”) in preparation for blasting.

Also, states Charles, Khodra had instructed him to train Kurt Clearson to operate the Drill Rig. Clearson, a labourer and or drill helper at the time, had no previous training in working the Drill Rig.

It is reported that during the training process, Clearson stood on the step attachment in front of the controls of the Drill Rig. The claimant sat on another part of the Drill Rig, directing Clear son’s operation and manoeuvring of the Drill Rig.

Charles further contends that Clearson operated the Drill Rig negligently, causing it to jerk repeatedly and that his foot got stuck in the Drill Rig’s tracks. The claimant acknowledged that the Drill Rig, by its design, does not provide any seating accommodations

Basically, the substantive claim by Charles contends that CIE was negligent, having failed in its duty to provide: a safe working environment for him by not providing a tractor head or a lowboy to transport the Drill Rig at the quarry pit and forcing him to track the Drill Rig to the quarry pit and train Clearson at the same time.

The claimant further contends that, there was not adequate plant and equipment for the work at hand and competent staff to undertake that task.

The incident resulted in the amputation of Charles’ right great and second toes. He was awarded costs in the sum of $99,350 for damages and pain and suffering endured due to the accident.

Subsequently, CIE Limited lodged an appeal citing several grounds for the motion.

Among these grounds, CIE Limited has argued that Charles bears significant responsibility for the accident that caused his injuries. The company contends that Charles failed to adhere to established safety protocols and guidelines, which could have contributed to the unfortunate outcome.

Furthermore, CIE Limited has raised concerns about the High Court’s handling of the case, asserting that the trial judge made fundamental errors.

A major contention put forward by CIE Limited is that the trial judge allegedly relied solely on Charles’s testimony, raising questions about the impartiality and completeness of the judgment.

In seeking specific outcomes in its application to the Court of Appeal, the company has requested that the previous orders issued by the trial judge be set aside.

CIE Limited is also seeking a judgment in its favour on the claim, suggesting that Charles should not be awarded the previously designated damages. Additionally, CIE Limited is pursuing an award of costs associated with the appeal.

The judge’s ruling notes that the claimant claims he suffered personal injury, loss and damage. He was 25 years old when he sustained the amputation of his right great toe at the interphalangeal joint and his right second toe at the distal interphalangeal joint.

Thus, the judgment adds, he has difficulty standing for prolonged periods, walking distances and running, with a whole-person impairment of 4%. Dr N. A. Dagbue (“Dr Dagbue”) operated on the claimant at Tapion Hospital for surgical debridement and repair of the stump of both toes, and he was discharged after four days.

In assessing the case against CIE, the judged noted – in The Evidence that the parties filed witness statements on 14th February 2020. The claimant gave evidence and called Dr N. A. Dagbue, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and traumatologist, who treated his injuries after the incident.

On the other hand, the defendants called four witnesses: Mr. Gordon Anthony Smith (“Mr. Smith”), a driller and a former employee of CIE; Mr. Clearson; Mr. Anselm Clauzel (“Mr. Clauzel”), operations manager of CIE; and Mr. Robert Robert (“Mr. Robert”) supervisor at CIE.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend