Case at a glance
- Recovery: $1,559,699 Arbitration Award
- Injury: Left foot and ankle amputation
- Practice: Workplace injuries
- Attorney: Vuk Vujasinovic
A different forklift, a different set of controls
Zachary was a warehouse employee trained to operate a Crown forklift. The Toyota stand-up forklift he was told to use worked differently. On the Crown, releasing the left foot pedal initiated braking. The Toyota used a right-foot pedal to slow or stop the machine when released.
Zachary told his supervisor he was not comfortable using the equipment, including on the day he was injured. She directed him to use it anyway.
He was sent to find another employee and then retrieve paperwork. As he turned into an aisle, the forklift hit pallets and then a pole. His left foot was outside the operator compartment and was pinned against the pole. The injury required amputation of his left foot and ankle.
The company’s own rules became important evidence
The VB Attorneys team presented evidence about the instructions Zachary received, the training he had been given and the employer’s forklift policies.
The company’s policy limited forklift use to handling products, not transporting employees around the facility. Yet Zachary had been instructed to use the machine to find a coworker and carry paperwork. The company’s forklift trainer acknowledged the risks of using heavy equipment simply to get around.
The training evidence was just as important. The operations supervisor testified that he would not put an employee on equipment the employee said he was uncomfortable using. He also acknowledged problems with forklift training at the facility. The incident investigation itself identified skill and training factors among the causes.
The team brought those facts together to show that the case was not only about Zachary’s movements in the seconds before impact. It was also about why he was operating that particular forklift, for that task, without the appropriate preparation.
Answering the sole-cause defense
The employer argued that Zachary’s attempt to catch a paper that had fallen was the sole cause of the accident. The arbitrator rejected that defense.
In the final award, the arbitrator found the employer negligent for directing Zachary to use equipment he had said he was uncomfortable operating and for directing him to use it for personal conveyance contrary to company policy. Those earlier decisions mattered: without them, Zachary would not have been using the forklift in that way.
The arbitrator found that the employer’s negligence caused the injury and held it responsible for the resulting damages.
An award addressing permanent loss and future care
Zachary recovered sufficiently to use a prosthesis, but the amputation was permanent. He would need replacement prosthetic devices throughout his life. The evidence also addressed the emotional effects of the injury and his ability to return to work.
The award did not assume Zachary could never work again. It considered evidence that he could perform sedentary work while recognizing his lasting physical loss, future prosthetic needs and need for mental-health care.
After the arbitration hearing, Zachary received an award of $1,559,699 in damages, plus interest. The damages included medical and prosthetic care, past lost wages, physical pain and mental anguish, disfigurement and physical impairment.
Questions about the case
Related legal help
Learn about workplace injury claims, or read about amputation and crush injuries.
To speak with Vuk Vujasinovic about a serious injury at work, call 877-724-7800 for a free consultation.
Every case is different. Prior results depend on the facts of the individual case and do not guarantee a similar outcome.