A payload operator with a local shipping company will receive just under $.5 million in compensation after he injured his back because of a defective seat in a piece of heavy machinery used on the job.

In a recent ruling, Justice Carol Gobin ordered Oldendorff Carriers Trinidad and Tobago to compensate the payload operator in the sum of $406, 414.

The payload operator has asked that his name not be published owing to the current crime situation.

In his lawsuit for breach of the duty of care to provide a safe system of work, the payload operator said he had been permanently employed with Oldendorff TT since 2012. His work-week scheduled was a two-day 6am-6 pm shift or the morning shift and then two night shifts with two days off.

The ruling said the practice was not to have a payload operator work more than three hours at a time.

In the case before Gobin, the payload operator said on February 17, 2018, he reported to work for his morning shift on the Pontoon Marcus. He inspected the payloader for external damage and leaks and after coming to the conclusion it was in good condition, he entered the machine, fastened his seatbelt and began building cargo heaps for the crane,

Twenty minutes later, he began experiencing discomfort in his back and tried to adjust the seat to a reclining position but it did not move.

He made a report that the seat was uncomfortable but was instructed to continue working. When he again reported for duty, days later, he felt the same discomfort and burning pain and again reported that the seat of the machinery was unable to adjust. The payloader was also inspected and it was discovered that the seat was still dysfunctional even after two reports were made about it.

After days of experiencing severe pain, he sought medical attention and was told he had a neck and lower back sprain along with other related complications.

In its defence, the shipping company said they had no record of him identifying any issue with the seat after the inspection on the first day although they had a record of him telling the operations supervisor of his back pain and his thoughts it was caused by a defective seat in the payload.

The company died receiving an oral report that the seat was not reclining or the injury to the worker.

In her ruling, Gobin had to determine if the reclining function of the payloader seat was defective and if the defect caused the worker’s injuries.

She said based on the evidence, the reclining malfunction in the seat “was clearly identified as the cause of the injury” and the worker had established causation.

“I have considered the evidence of the parties and find for the claimant that the seat of the payloader was defective—the recliner function was not working.”

She also said because of the nature of defect, a mere visual inspection would not have detected it, and when brought to its attention, it was for the company to rectify the issue.

“It did not seem to deal with it seriously.”

She ordered the company to pay special damages for doctor visits and