The High Court has allowed a truck driver to amend his personal injuries claim to allege that a worn step on his employer’s truck caused his fall, rather than a wet warehouse floor. The court did not decide what caused the accident or whether the employer was liable.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled on the amendment application on 10 February 2023. The claim arose from an accident at about 3am on 30 October 2014, when Frank Behan was getting down from a truck while working for Deering Transport Ltd. His original summons, issued in February 2016 against Deering Transport and three other defendants, alleged that he slipped on a wet warehouse floor and injured his right knee.
The proposed amendment says the ridges on the truck’s lowest step were worn and caused him to slip. Behan had discontinued his claims against the other defendants, which were identified as companies associated with the warehouse. The application before Mr Justice Ferriter concerned permission to amend the claim against Deering Transport; it was not a trial of the injury claim.
Deering Transport opposed the change, arguing that it fundamentally altered the claim and would cause prejudice, including by potentially depriving it of a limitation defence. It also raised the cost of investigating the wet-floor allegation and concerns about further engineering evidence and witness recollection.
The judge found that the central issue remained the cause of Behan’s fall while getting down from the truck during his employment. He said the other defendants had pleaded in May 2016 that the truck steps, rather than the warehouse floor, caused the accident. Deering Transport had CCTV footage by July 2015, and its engineer inspected the truck in September 2016, within the limitation period. The judge found no evidence of likely actual prejudice that could not be addressed through conditions and costs.
The court allowed the amendment. It expressly preserved Deering Transport’s right to raise any defence that the amended case differed from the claim covered by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board authorisation, including a contention that the authorisation was invalid. The judge made no finding on the merits of that possible defence.
Behan must pay the costs of Deering Transport amending its defence and seeking particulars on the amended claim, with adjudication stayed until the proceedings are determined. The trial judge will consider any claim for unnecessary or additional costs arising from the amendment. The judge’s provisional view was that the usual rule should apply to the costs of the amendment application, but he said he would hear further argument if Behan sought a different order.