Tractor negligence case referred back to court

Farm equipment firm Agricentre South Limited, which was found negligent in a brake failure incident resulting in a Mataura farmer being run over by a tractor, has appealed a court ruling to pay $30,000 for consequential losses.

The matter was first heard at Gore District Court in April and then referred to High Court in July, and will return to District Court.

On April 18, Judge Bernadette Farnan ruled in favour of the appellant Worksafe and sentenced Agricentre to pay reparations of $60,000 for emotional harm to the victim Michele Bastiaansen, along with $73,459.75 in respect of consequential losses she suffered as a result of her extensive injuries in April 2016.

Agricentre had pleaded guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to ensure that an identified problem with the brakes on the secondhand tractor had been properly rectified before allowing the Bastiaansens to use it for a trial period.

Five days after receiving the tractor, the brakes failed when it was pulling a trailer up an incline. Bastiaansen, who was seated on the trailer, was thrown off it. The tractor rolled over her as it travelled backwards down the hill.

In the sentencing, the company took no issue with the reparations imposed, but questioned one aspect of the assessment relating to ‘‘consequential loss’’, which involved the award of $30,000 towards purchase of a new automatic Hilux truck.

The case was then referred to the High Court and heard by Justice Rachel Dunningham on July 26, with the judgement given on August 14.

Judge Farnan had ruled the reparation of $30,000 as ‘‘appropriate’’, because it took into account the decision to buy a new vehicle and the deduction for the trade-in.

On the ACC issue, it was found that there was no evidence about what application had been made in respect of an automatic vehicle, or why ACC had declined that request.

Justice Dunningham allowed the appeal. The award of $30,000 for consequential losses in relation to the purchase of a new farm vehicle was set aside and the matter remitted back to the District Court for assessment of what consequential losses were in fact incurred as a consequence of needing to replace the manual vehicle with an automatic vehicle.