A defendant whose negligence was found to have caused an employee’s injuries was held liable for damages as well as the costs of the trial, including the qualifying fees of the occupational therapist.

Hobongwana v Benteler South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2023] 4 BLLR 359 (ECP)

The plaintiff sustained a lower back injury at the defendant’s automotive manufacturing plant and, therefore, sued the defendant for damages. The incident took place whilst the plaintiff was operating a machine on the SSB line, to which he had been moved shortly before the incident occurred. It was common cause that he had sustained an injury, however, the parties disputed who was responsible for the relevant incident.

The plaintiff argued that he was not trained to use the machine and that after he told his team leader that he does not know how to operate the machine, he was instructed to continue due to a shortage of staff. The plaintiff further stated that he was aware that he could face disciplinary proceedings should he fail to follow an instruction given by his team leader. The defendant denied that it had been negligent, and held that all operators received sufficient training to work on the machinery.

The defendant admitted that all users of the machinery and equipment at the workplace should be properly trained as the machinery in the workplace carried inherent risks of harm. The defendant also admitted that it had a legal duty to ensure that all users are properly trained and instructed before such machinery or equipment can be operated.

Applying the test for negligence, the Court had to determine whether the defendant took reasonable steps to safeguard against the inherent risks in operating the machines on the SSB line, which the plaintiff had been instructed to operate. Furthermore, the Court had to determine whether the training offered sufficed to discharge the defendant’s legal duty to train the operators.

The defendant had showed all operators at the plant a short slide show presentation covering topics related to health and safety at the workplace. The Court held that the slide show presentation did not adequately equip operators to use the machinery on the various production lines, nor did it fully deal with the risks associated therewith.

The Court held that the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient training and instructions to operate the machinery on the SSB line, that he was not afforded sufficient supervision, and that the defendant failed to ensure that the plaintiff operated the machinery in a safe and controlled manner. Furthermore, the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to preserve and protect the bodily integrity and physical well-being of the plaintiff. The defendant was, therefore, negligent.

For a delictual claim to succeed, a causal link needs to exist between the defendant’s acts or omissions and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The Court had to determine factual and legal causation. Through applying the “but for” test, also known as the sine quo non test, the Court determined and held that there existed a causal link between the defendant’s acts or omissions and the plaintiff’s injury. If the plaintiff had received sufficient training, he would not have sustained an injury. With regard to legal causation, the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff’s harm was foreseeable, and that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently closely linked thereto.

The defendant was, therefore, held liable for damages and ordered to pay the costs of the trial.

Issued by Labour Guide