The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A FORMER employee of Nassau Flight Services Ltd has sued the company, alleging she was left 100 percent disabled after being struck in the face by malfunctioning equipment, an incident she claims occurred because she was forced to perform a two-person task alone during a staffing shortage.

The case unfolding in the Supreme Court centres on a workplace injury Mordina Ferguson sustained on June 28, 2018.

Ms Ferguson alleges she was seriously injured when the park brake handle of a faulty air conditioning unit “forcefully struck her to the right side of her face” as she attempted to mount it onto a tractor, a task she says she should not have been performing solo.

She contends that the incident was caused by the employer’s failure to provide adequate staffing, maintain safe equipment, or ensure proper safety protocols, including flagging malfunctioning machinery. 

Her claim is built on both negligence and alleged breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act, which mandates employers to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their workers.

In an affidavit, she claims Nassau Flight Services paid for her medical treatment for roughly three years, sent her to doctors of their choosing, and only ceased support after a medical report declared her permanently disabled. She now argues that the company’s actions amount to an implicit admission of liability and says that the continued litigation has left her unable to pay for necessary further treatment.

Nonetheless, Justice Leif Farquharson denied Ferguson’s application for summary judgment last week, saying the defendant has demonstrated a real prospect of defending the claim at trial.

“The court is not entitled on an application for summary judgment to conduct a trial on documents without disclosure or cross-examination,” he noted, referencing English case law that supports the need for a full trial in complex factual disputes. Ms Ferguson’s legal team had argued that the company’s conduct and admissions effectively conceded liability and that only the quantum of damages remained at issue.

The defence, led by Roger Minnis and Roger Minnis II, maintains that her injury either did not happen in the manner alleged or may not have happened at all. They assert that maintenance records showed the equipment was in working condition and that Ms Ferguson was not working alone, citing internal emails from a company investigation and eyewitness accounts.

The company further argues that its previous financial support was not an admission of responsibility but an act of compassion.

General manager Ricardo Rolle, in an affidavit, dismissed the claim that the company’s conduct amounts to an acknowledgement of liability.

He said the internal investigation, conducted shortly after the incident, concluded that the brake in question was functioning properly and suggested that if any injury occurred, it resulted from Ms Ferguson’s negligence in failing to secure the brake before walking away.

Ms Ferguson relies in part on medical evidence from Dr Clyde Munnings, who supported her claim of total disability. The defence, however, has not submitted its medical expert and questions the objectivity of Dr Munnings’ findings.

Ultimately, the court ruled that there are multiple unresolved factual and legal issues, including whether the accident happened as described, the extent of the claimant’s injuries, and the condition of the equipment involved, that must be determined at trial.