This article was written by Senior Associate, Emily Trickey.
A workplace injury does not necessarily mean it was caused by negligence of the worker’s employer. There are a series of evidentiary tests a worker must prove at trial to be successful against their employer.
The importance of this was set out by His Honour, Horneman-Wren J, in the recent decision of Lowe v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 204, where he stated, “…not all workplace incidents and the resultant injuries can be sheeted home to an employer’s negligence, no matter how the worker may perceive events or rationalise how they must have come about, or how broadly a case may be pleaded…”
FACTS
On 1 April 2019, then 23 year old meatworker, Ritchie Lowe suffered a partial amputation of his right index finger when it came in contact with the blade of a bandsaw he was operating. The Plaintiff alleged he was cutting a rack of veal ribs using a Thompson bandsaw. The Plaintiff alleged the veal was smaller in size compared to the cuts he had been trained on and it necessitated him to bring his hands closer to the blade.
The Plaintiff made several allegations against the employer about the inadequate system of work (most of which were unsubstantiated) but the focus of the Plaintiff’s liability case was the employer’s failure to:
- Train the Plaintiff to assess the risk of the task and remove himself from the task entirely if he came across meat he was not familiar with or if he was struggling to maintain concentration;
- Provide adequate plant and equipment including a blade guard and/or a push stick; and/or
- Ensure the smaller cuts were performed on a bandsaw with BladeStop technology.
The employer conceded there was a foreseeable risk of injury posed by the dangers of a bandsaw and that it owed the Plaintiff a duty to guard him against this foreseeable risk of injury. The employer however argued that it took all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of injury and that it did not breach its duty of care.
THE COURT'S DECISION
His Honour was critical of the broadness of the Plaintiff’s allegations in the pleaded case and the evidence the Plaintiff gave at trial, which largely contradicted what he had alleged in his Statement of Claim.
LIABILITY
Whilst it was accepted the bandsaw created a foreseeable risk of this type of laceration injury, his Honour found that the Plaintiff failed to prove any alleged breach by the employer. In particular:
- There was no evidence of there being any problems associated with the rate of production on the day or the Plaintiff’s ability to keep up;
- The Plaintiff agreed the method which he adopted and in which he had been trained was the system the employer had implemented – pinch grip of the rib rack with fingers curled away from the blade;
- There was an “absolute absence” of any action being taken by the Plaintiff to address his alleged concerns with smaller cuts of meat on the morning of the incident – that is because he did not in fact have concerns that morning;
- The evidence was clearly about a general concern the Plaintiff had about the dangerous process of cutting meat with the bandsaw with his fingers passing close to the blade;
- The Plaintiff knew that if he had a concern about being able to safely operate the bandsaw, he knew he could raise it with a supervisor;
- The risk posed by the bandsaw blade cannot be eliminated because the blade cannot be fully guarded to remove the risk of fingers passing in close proximity;
- The employer conducted a risk assessment for the task and took steps to mitigate the risk of injury by providing training to the Plaintiff;
- The size or slipperiness of the meat did not differ from the usual cuts the Plaintiff had performed;
- It was not unreasonable for the employer to not have replaced all bandsaws with new bandsaws with Bladestop technology, given the significant expense and there was no evidence to suggest that using a BladeStop bandsaw would have prevented the injury – it would only have reduced the severity of the injury;
- Other items such as push-sticks recommended by the Plaintiff’s liability expert would not have been appropriate to mitigate the risk given such equipment relates to wood-work and is irrelevant to a meatwork environment.
In summary, His Honour found the Plaintiff failed to prove his liability case.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The scope of an employer’s duties owed to workers is often broad, often making claims difficult to defend.
The Lowe case is a great example of why that is not always true. It demonstrates the importance of employer’s conducting proper risk assessments of the tasks and taking steps to reduce or remove the risks identified.