The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A PAINT merchant has defeated a $2.215m damages claim brought by its ex-warehouse manager who alleged he “cannot work at all” and is unable “to earn a living” after suffering a serious spinal injury while lifting goods at its premises.

Reginald Minns, who asserted that he has been assessed as having “60 percent disability” by the National Insurance Board (NIB), launched legal action against Bahamian Paint and its parent, Bahamian Paint Supply, almost 12 years ago on the grounds that his life-changing injury was due to negligence and that the company had violated its duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

However, Justice Neil Brathwaite, in a November 6, 2026, verdict dismissed Mr Minns’ claim in its entirety. He ruled that, while the ex-warehouse manager “sustained an acute episode of lower back pain” on December 16, 2011, while working on Bahamian Paint’s premises, he failed to supply sufficient proof and evidence that his former employer provided an “unsafe system of work” or “caused or materially contributed to the injury.

Mr Minns, 37, in his Supreme Court claim over an injury suffered now almost 15 years ago, sought $515,715 for loss of earnings representing the remaining 28 years of his working life before hitting retirement age at 65. This figure included $67,267 to account for the increased cost of living, plus $40,768 in interest.

He also claimed $302,000 for medical expenses, including $22,000 for initial spinal surgery plus recuperative care at $10,000 per annum for 28 years, plus $550,000 for “pain, suffering and loss of amenities”. And, given that Bahamian Paint terminated his employment on January 12, 2012, just a month after sustaining his injury, Mr Minnis demanded a further $110,000 in damages for wrongful.

This totalled $1.926m and, with $288,924 in costs added in, this took his total damages claim to $2.215m. Mr Minns initially obtained a default judgment worth $1.825m, plus $101,000 in interest, against Bahamian Paint on July 15, 2015, but this was set aside just ten days later by then-Supreme Court justice, Indra Charles. The company subsequently filed its defence rejecting the allegations that it was negligent or breached the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Mr Minns, who asserted that he was “in excellent health” prior to his accident, said he now “cannot work at all” or earn a living. He alleged that Bahamian Paint breached its legal duty to care for the health, safety and welfare of the [plaintiff while at work as is reasonably practicable” and maintain a safe system of work.

He also claimed the company failed to provide “information, instruction, training and supervision” on workplace health and safety, maintain the workplace in a safe and healthy condition, and as far as practical eliminate risks to him and others.

“The plaintiff alleges that the injury was caused by the defendant's negligence on the basis that, because the defendant's forklift was ‘unfunctional’, he was required to manually lift boxes containing paint on to a trolley for storage and subsequently lift them from the trolley for stocking,” Justice Brathwaite recorded.

“He alleges that, while performing those tasks, he experienced the onset of pain radiating from his back down his legs. He consequently alleges that the defendant was in breach of its duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act and at common law.”

Turning to Bahamian Paint’s case, the judge added: “The defendant denies liability. It contends that the plaintiff was an experienced warehouse manager with prior warehouse and forklift experience; that an adequate system for the handling and storage of goods was in place; and that relevant material-handling equipment and safety measures were available.

“The Defendant further contends that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged accident caused the injuries and losses claimed, having regard, in particular, to medical records which appear to document lumbar symptoms, imaging and periods of sick leave pre-dating December 16, 2011. In the alternative, it pleads that the pPlaintiff's own conduct caused or materially contributed to the injury alleged and/or to any subsequent aggravation.”

Mr Minns, in his evidence, said he started with Bahamian Paint in 2009 and he later became warehouse manager. “His responsibilities included receiving incoming goods, placing them in storage and ensuring the efficient operation of the warehouse,” Justice Brathwaite said.

“He accepted that he had previous experience in warehouse work and as a forklift operator, including experience acquired during his employment with Tropical Shipping. He sought, however, to distinguish the working conditions at Tropical Shipping from those at the defendant's warehouse.

“He testified that Tropical Shipping had functioning mechanical equipment, back braces, regular safety briefings and sufficient employees to assist with heavy lifting work. His evidence was that those arrangements were materially different from those available to him while working for the defendant.”

Mr Minns alleged that, on the day he suffered his injury, Bahamian Paint was short-staffed and he was working alone in the warehouse on processing and storing a paint shipment. He added that, with the forlkift not operational, he was lifting a box with four one-gallon paint cans when he “felt a snap and shooting pains in [his] back and legs".

Justice Brathwaite added: “He said that the pain ‘forced [him] to [his] knees’ before he ‘dropped to the floor’, and he described the sensation as being ‘like water was running down [his] spine’.

“He testified that, following the accident, he found ‘a piece of cardboard and laid on it for about 30 to 45 minutes’", that the box he lifted weighed approximately 45.2 pounds, and when it was put to him that the weight of the box was the relevant cause of his injury, his response was: ‘Working by myself brought me to my knees, sir’.”

Mr Minns got up and carried on working, initially believing it was “just a little sprain” and he had to clear supplies in the warehouse as another shipment was expected. However, he accepted that “trolleys, dollies and other material-handling equipment were available at the defendant's premises. He also accepted that he wore a back brace on the day in question subject to his qualification that the back brace was his own”.

However, Mario Rodland, Bahamian Paint’s operations manager, and Bruce Johnson, its then-general manager, both countered that “a system had been established for the receiving, moving, counting and storage of goods.

“Its warehouse policy stated that warehouse employees were required to comply with the applicable safety guidance, and that management had provided training in the use of forklifts and pallet jacks, together with five back braces for warehouse personnel. The policy explicitly referred to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) warehousing guidance,” Justice Brathwaite recalled.

Mr Rodland testified that “warehouse personnel were informed of the relevant requirements through discussions with staff and information displayed on a warehouse billboard”, but accepted that the facility was short-staffed when the accident occurred and there had been “complaints about the forklift”, but said he saw Mr Minns using it that day.

Bahamian Paint’s attorney argued that Mr Minns had failed to show the company’s work system was “defective” when it came to health and safety, arguing that “the warehouse had an adequate system for handling incoming paint stock [and] there was no evidence that the approximately 45-pound box identified by the plaintiff could safely be handled only by forklift, required two persons to lift, or could not safely be moved using the trolley and other available aids”.

Justice Brathwaite, in his verdict, found “on a balance of probabilities” that Mr Minns suffered his injury on Bahamian Paint’s premises during the day in question. But he had failed to supply sufficient proof that paint retailer had breached its duty of care to him and/or was responsible for his injury.

“In the circumstances, I am unable to find that the defendant breached section four [of the Health and Safety at Work Act] by a departure from the OSHA guidance or by otherwise providing an unsafe system of work in the particular circumstances of the accident,” the judge ruled.

“The plaintiff has established that he suffered discomfort, but he has not established, on a balance of probabilities, a breach by the defendant of its statutory or common-law duty by a failure to provide a safe system of work, or indeed a failure to provide adequate assistance…

“In those circumstances, even apart from the absence of a proved breach, the plaintiff has not established the necessary causal connection between any actionable conduct by the defendant and the injury and losses claimed,” Justice Brathwaite continued.

“The medical record discrepancy reinforces the need to distinguish between the finding that the plaintiff experienced an acute episode of back pain at work and any broader finding concerning the subsequent pathology, disability or consequential loss.”

Bahamian Paint was represented by attorney Ashley Williams, while Krystian Butler acted for Mr Minns.