Safety and Risk Summary Example for Clients

Safety Risk Summary for …….  September 1, 2016 1
SafetyRiskSummaryExample NX DISRUPTION PTY LTD
Example of a Safety Risk Summary Prepared by NX for our clients
Date Services Performed By: Services Performed For:
September 1, 2016 NX DISRUPTION PTY LTD
This Safety Risk Summary is issued to help deliver as part of the pursuant to the Consultant Services
Master Agreement between ……. (“Client”) and NX DISRUPTION PTY LTD (“Contractor”), effective
September 1, 2016 (the “Agreement”).
This summary is a listing of all the potential court case verdicts which could be used within the likelihood
if there was a claim against safety by either contractor or employee, or could be used for the basis of
potential fines or site closures.
Case Listing
CASE DESCRIPTION LIABILITY
1.
Injury of an Employee due to an unsafe system of
work
$ 265, 014 60
2. Injury due to an unsafe system of work $ 176, 621 87
3. Employers need to enforce workers to wear PPE $ 337, 113 55
4. Liability for back pain after injury $ 578, 000 00
5. Warning could have prevented injury $ 110, 000 00
6. A Foreseeable Risk $ 225, 000 00
7. No obligation to warn of obvious risk {appealed} $ 156, 000 00
8. Risk of injury for manual handling $ 600, 000 00
9. Injury due to an unsafe system of work $ 566, 752 19
BEFORE TAX: $ 3, 014, 502 21

Case 1: Injury of an Employee due to an unsafe system of work
Case Source: Russell v Hancock Farm Company Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 129
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/130614-russell-v-hancock-farm-
company
Background:
The injured worker (the claimant) was employed as a casual farm hand from April 2008 and on the night of 8th
September 2008 the claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to his neck. The claimant was driving a tractor to haul a
piece of equipment designed to spread liquid fertiliser on the ground around trees. The plaintiff needed to monitor
that the nozzles would not clog and would turn his head and look over his shoulder to do this.
Liability
It was a liability and quantum matter.
 The Court expects employers to implement and enforce a safe system of work to ensure that workers are
not injured while at work.
 Regardless if an injury is an aggravation of a pre existing condition, if an employer is found to be negligent
in implementing and/or enforcing a safe system of work, the Court can award substantial compensation to
an injured worker
The aspects of the employer’s (the defendant) operations were questioned by the Court:
 The tractor was designed so that the driver would face forward.
 The seat could be unlocked so that it could rotate
 There were no rear vision mirrors, inside or outside the cabin.
 Mirrors could not be placed outside because at times branches would sweep against the tractor.
 The work was being carried out at night where there was poor visibility
The defendant argued that other employees who have performed the same task and used the same system of work
did not sustain any injuries. Expert witnesses argued that workers may experience muscle soreness but this would
not cause significant pathology.
Judgement:
The judge considered there was psychological injury in the form of an adjustment disorder arising from the
continued pain and the plaintiff’s bad reaction to this.
Judge McGill delivered the verdict on the case of Russell vs Hancock Farm Company Pty Ltd on Friday 14 June
2013. Judgment was made for the Plaintiff in the sum of $265,014.60 which was clear of the statutory claim refund.

Case 2: Injury due to an unsafe system of work
Case Source: Constance v Bush Services Pty Ltd [2013]
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/injury-due-to-an-unsafe-
system-of-work
The Court expects employers to take all reasonable precautions to implement and maintain a safe system of work to ensure that
workers are not injured while at work.
Background:
The injured worker (the claimant) was employed as a casual banana packer in a banana packing shed and on 12
March 2009 the claimant sustained an injury to her right thumb. The claimant was walking to an area with a
secondary conveyor belt to un-jam some boxes and slipped and fell.
Liability
The aspects of the employer’s (the defendant) operations were questioned by the Court:
 The concrete floor could become slippery due to the build-up of algae or moss
 Chlorine was required to remove the build-up of algae or moss
 There was no preventative process implemented to proactively manage this risk.
The defendant argued that the algae was cleaned a couple of times a year. Expert witnesses for both the plaintiff
and defendant found that there was good grip on the concrete in both wet and dry conditions. The plaintiff’s
ergonomic expert estimated that considering the conditions as reported by the plaintiff there would have been
reduced coefficient of friction by 50% due to the presence of algae or moss.
Credibility issues were raised by the defendant as the claimant had provided numerous versions of how the event
occurred. The judge found there was evidence that the concrete had algae or moss upon which the plaintiff had
slipped.
Judgement:
The judge stated the system of work used was unsafe and this was a breach of the defendant’s duties to the plaintiff.
Even though cleaning of the algae/moss was undertaken this was not sufficient to prevent it occurring and the risk
of injury to employees was foreseeable.
Judge Harrison delivered the verdict for the Plaintiff in the sum of $176.621.87, which was clear of the statutory
claim refund.

Case 3: Employers need to enforce workers to wear PPE
Case Source: Tompkins v Kemp Meats Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 184
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/130717-tompkins-v-kemp-meats-pty-ltd
The case serves as an important reminder on the need to enforce the requirement for workers to wear personal
protective equipment, in this case the cut resistant mesh gloves, and that this requirement will not be diluted by a
workers’ choice not to wear safety gear despite knowing of there is a risk of injury for failing to do so.
Background:
The Plaintiff was a 44 year old abattoir slaughterman employed by the Defendant. He was working on the killing
floor and in the process of ‘fronting out’ a pig when he cut the top of his left (non dominant) thumb. The Plaintiff
continued to work following the incident. Two days later his thumb became infected. He was treated and returned
to work doing alternative duties. He was subsequently diagnosed with a severed extensor tendon. He underwent
surgery and suffered from a post-operative infection. The Plaintiff continued to work as a slaughterman both after
the incident and prior to the surgery and then following surgery but complained of stiffness and a lack of grip
strength. The Plaintiff resigned from his position with the Defendant at about 15 months post incident and took up
alternative employment first as a rigger and then as a delivery driver and store man for a butcher.
Liability
The Defendant argued the Plaintiff was contributory negligent for failing to wear the cut resistant gloves provided
by the Defendant despite being an experienced meat work, having a prior history of cuts and gloves being available.
The Court determined that there should be no reduction for contributory negligence as the Defendant’s system of
work was faulty. It held it should have been mandatory for workers to wear gloves. It also noted there were
insufficient gloves available for all of the workers.
Judgement:
Judge Durward delivered the verdict on the case on Friday 17 July 2013. Judgment was made for the Plaintiff in the
sum of $337,113.55 clear of the statutory refund plus costs on a standard basis.

Case 4: Liability for back pain after injury
Case Source: Snell v BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) [2013] QSC 284
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/131014-snell-v-bp-refinery-bulwer-
island
Background:
The worker sustained injuries when he fell into a trench. He was 48 years old at the time of his injury and has since
remained employed with BP Refinery. He suffered at least a 21% WPI and had ongoing back issues which impacted
his home and work duties.
Judgement:
Liability was admitted. The injured worker was awarded $578 000 for his physical injuries.
Case 5: Warning could have prevented injury
Case Source: Fetu v Northern Iron and Brass Foundry [2013] QDC 330
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/131220-fetu-v-northern-iron-and-brass-
foundry
Background:
Worker suffered a shoulder injury when he was working in a primer booth as a spray painter. He was operating a
hoist by remote control. The remote control was not working properly and it suddenly wrenched his shoulder as he
still had his hand on the item being lifted by the hoist.
Judgement:
The court accepted the injured worker’s evidence that he had previously reported issues with the hoist and control.
The court also accepted it was standard practice for employees to leave their hand on the item being lifted. This
issue was not identified during a risk assessment by the employer. The court concluded that a simple warning to
workers to not leave their hand on the item would have prevented the injury.
Plaintiff won and was awarded $110 000.

Case 6: A foreseeable risk
Case Source: Schmidt v S J Sanders Pty Ltd [2012] QDC
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/120622-schmidt-v-s-j-sanders-pty-ltd
Background on Appeal:
The Court of Appeal found in favour of the worker in that a system of instruction on how to get in and out of the
truck could easily have been implemented and that the employer was negligent for not implementing one despite
the foreseeable risk of falling.
As the date of injury was prior to 1 July 2010, a defence was not available under the WH&S Act. This civil right no
longer applies for injuries post this date and the amendments to the WCRA 2003 should assist.
Importantly, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision that the truck step should be modified. It
concluded “An employer has an obligation to provide safe and proper plant and equipment” and “…that obligation
is discharged where the employer purchases appropriate equipment from a reputable manufacturer or supplier and
makes any inspection that a reasonable employer would.” Further, there is no obligation upon an employer to
“…assess slippage capabilities of the step system of a prime mover purchased specifically for its recognised safety
features.” An employer is only required to undertake an inspection which is reasonable to undertake in the
circumstances.
Judgement:
Irvin DCJ gave significant consideration to the experts’ evidence. Whilst the employer’s expert suggested that the
access system was “…amongst the best that I have seen”, his honour preferred the view of the workers expert that
the access step could be easily modified with non-slip material or bolting on aggressive traction which is a cheap,
inexpensive response to the foreseeable risk. His honour further agreed there were other plausible explanations as
to why the worker slipped, but preferred the worker’s version.
The judge therefore found in the worker’s favour ordering the agreed quantum of $225,000.

Case 7: No obligation to warn of obvious risk
Case Source: Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 52
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/heywood-v-commercial-electrical-pty-
ltd
The duty imposed on employers is to take reasonable care to avoid injury to workers. An employer does not have an obligation to avoid
all risks by all reasonably affordable means. The obviousness of the risk and a reasonable expectation that workers will take care of their
own safety must be taken into account.
Background:
The worker was an electrical apprentice who severed his ulnar nerve when he descended a ladder and his elbow
came into contact with a U shaped piece of metal that he, the worker, had cut and placed on his tool box near the
ladder. The worker’s evidence was that he wasn’t thinking about the piece of metal as he descended the ladder; he
was thinking about his next task.
Liability
The worker argued there were two issues in relation to liability:
 That the employer had failed to consider and implement a system of work that did not require the worker
to handle sharp edged pieces of the U shaped metal; and
 That the employer failed to properly instruct and supervise the worker, who was a relatively inexperienced
apprentice, and who distracted by his next task as he descended the ladder.
In relation to the first issue, the Judge found that the employer’s system of work of using the U shaped metal was
appropriate and that it satisfied the Electrical Safety Act and relevant standards.
In relation to the second issue, the Judge found that the employer had not breached its duty of care to the worker.
The relevant considerations were:
 The task was not a difficult one;
 The worker knew how to do the task;
 The worker knew he was handling sharp metal and he knew the consequences of handling sharp metal.
That was obvious from the worker’s own work. There was no requirement on the employer to warn him it
was sharp.
 The worker created the risk of injury himself by placing the sharp metal exposed on the toolbox close to
the ladder he was working on.
The Judge found that there was no obligation to warn of this obvious risk and that the injury was the result of the
worker’s own actions.
The worker’s claim was dismissed.
Judgement:
The plaintiff appealed and on appeal was awarded $156,000. The court found that simple instructions would have
reduced the risk of injury and it was relevant that the worker was inexperienced and potentially prone to making
mistakes.
The plaintiff also appealed the trial judge's damages assessment, particularly in relation to the award for future
economic loss, on the basis that his planned career in the mining injury (with higher wages) was now not available.
This was rejected.

Case 8: Risk of injury for manual handling
Case Source: Griffiths v State of Queensland [2011] QCA 057
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/common-law-case-study
Background:
The injured worker was employed as a nursing assistant at the Nambour General Hospital, where she worked in the
Central Sterilising Service Department (CSSD). The CSSD is a large industrial washing area, equipped with
sterilising dishwashers and other equipment for medical sterilisation and cleaning.
Each month the CSSD unit processes tens of thousands of pieces of surgical equipment of varying size and weights.
One piece of equipment in particular is a soda lime canister, weighing approximately five kilograms, with the
majority of the weight distributed at one end (approximately 70:30 ratio).
On 5 October 2004, the worker was lifting a soda lime canister preparing to place it in a decontaminator. She used a
flat palm grip on the heavier end of the canister, however it slipped from her grasp. It was when she bent down in
an attempt to catch the falling canister that she was injured. The trial was a dispute over liability only; there was no
dispute that the worker was injured in this event.
Liability
On 6 August 2010, Justice Daubney dismissed the worker’s claim, ruling that the employer had discharged its duty
under Section 26 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld) (the Act). This included the employer
complying with the Manual Tasks Code of Practice 2000 (the Code), the relevant code of practice within the
meaning of this section.
The Court found that a reasonable employer, prior to the incident, would not have foreseen a serious and probable
risk of an employee picking up the canister (in the way described by the injured worker), dropping it, and causing an
injury.
The Court was not satisfied that the injured worker had established there were any reasonable practical or corrective
measures that the employer could have implemented that would have reduced the risks associated with her work
tasks.
The worker appealed this ruling to the Queensland Court of Appeal.
he appeal was heard on 24 February 2011 in the Queensland Court of Appeal, before Justice Muir, Justice
Chesterman and Justice White.
The main issue of the appeal was whether the employer had adopted and followed ‘the way’ of managing exposure
to the risk, as stated in the Code. Failing that, whether the employer followed all factors specified in s. 26(3)(b) of
the Act, which states:
If a code of practice states a way of managing exposure to a risk, a person discharges the person’s workplace health
and safety obligations for exposure to the risk only by doing all of the following:
(i) adopting and following a stated way that gives the same level of protection against the risk;
(ii) taking reasonable precautions, and

(iii) exercising proper diligence.
In a majority decision, the appeal was allowed with costs. In reaching their decision, particular attention was paid to
how the Code applies to the Act, and how the Code focuses on the identification of ‘problem tasks’ as an aspect of
risk management for manual tasks (that have the potential to contribute to a musculoskeletal disorder). In this case,
the employer had no systemic process for identifying manual tasks that had the potential to contribute to a
musculoskeletal injury (which is the focus of the Code). Also, the employer knew that two or three other workers
had previously expressed concerns about the awkwardness of the particular item in an informal conversation they
had with a Manager.
Judgement:
The Court of Appeal ruled that the employer had not followed the Code, and therefore had not discharged their
obligation of adopting and following a process that gives a level of protection against the risk.
The worker was awarded the previously agreed amount of $600,000, plus costs of the proceedings.

Case 9: Injury due to an unsafe system of work
Case Source: Constance v Bush Services Pty Ltd [2013]
* https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies/common-law-claim-case-studies/injury-due-to-an-unsafe-
system-of-work
The Court expects employers to take all reasonable precautions to implement and maintain a safe system of work to ensure that
workers are not injured while at work.
Background:
Mr Enda Judge was a 26 year old qualified plumber from Ireland who was temporarily doing some farm work on a
working holiday when he was injured. He sustained a crush injury to his toes and foot while operating a cotton
compactor on 1 May 2009. Mr Judge had to have four of his toes subsequently amputated.
Liability
Liability was admitted and the Court assessed the damages payable to Mr Judge. The main issue in dispute was
future economic loss, that is, the extent to which the injury would adversely affect Mr Judge’s capacity to earn
income.
Judgement:
The Court was impressed by Mr Judge’s early return to work after the injury and his stoicism in managing the
symptoms of his injury in the course of his work as a plumber.
The evidence of Dr Morgan, Orthopaedic Surgeon, was accepted. Dr Morgan was of the view Mr Judge’s earning
capacity was limited by his injury and that he was not able to work the same amount of overtime as his peers
because of his injury. There was also a risk that Mr Judge may eventually have to scale back his work as a plumber
because of his injury.
The Court accepted that Mr Judge would have moved to better paid plumbing work from time to time if not for the
injury.
Further, the Court found there was a risk Mr Judge would be limited to sedentary work because of the effects of his
injury. As Mr Judge’s only qualification was as a plumber (he had no other formal education or qualifications) it
would be difficult for him to secure sedentary employment that paid as well as his plumbing work.
The Court awarded $566,752.19 in damages to Mr Judge, $367,500 of which was for future economic loss.

Safety and Risk Summary Example for Clients

More Related Content

Similar to Safety and Risk Summary Example for Clients (20)

More from Matthew Bennett (20)

Safety and Risk Summary Example for Clients