The Supreme Court of New South Wales has awarded a former labourer more than $1 million after finding his employer failed to provide a safe system of work when he was injured by falling steel beams.
Background
Mr Thomas Pratt was working as a labourer on a construction site at Pennant Hills in June 2016. His job included assisting with the unloading of large steel beams from trucks.
The beams were approximately 17.5 metres long and weighed at least 750 kilograms each. They were being moved by crane and placed on the ground in pairs.
Mr Pratt’s supervisor, Mr Gary Dries, was a trained and licensed dogman responsible for safely handling the crane loads. Mr Pratt, however, had never received training as a dogman.
After another pair of steel beams had been placed on the ground, Mr Dries told Mr Pratt that “they’re right”. Mr Pratt understood this to mean that the beams were safe to approach and that he should remove the chains.
As Mr Pratt approached the beams, one was sitting on top of the other. The beams suddenly became unstable and toppled, crushing Mr Pratt’s left foot and ankle.
The injuries were severe. Mr Pratt suffered multiple fractures and subsequently developed chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. He underwent numerous surgeries over the following years and also developed depression, anxiety and PTSD.
The Court’s findings
Justice Fagan found that the employer had failed to take reasonable steps to protect Mr Pratt from the risk of being injured by the unstable beams.
The Court found that Mr Dries should have inspected the beams after they were placed on the ground to make sure they were stable before allowing anyone to approach them. As a trained dogman, he was responsible for safely handling the load.
The Court also found that Mr Pratt should not have been expected to identify the danger himself. He had no dogman training and reasonably understood his supervisor’s words to mean that it was safe to approach the beams.
The Court identified several precautions that could have prevented the accident, including having a qualified dogman inspect the beams, ensuring they were stable before anyone approached them, and keeping other workers away from the area until the load had been safely secured.
No contributory negligence
The employer argued that Mr Pratt should share some responsibility for his injury because he approached the beams himself.
The Court rejected this argument. Mr Pratt had been acting on an instruction from his supervisor and reasonably believed that the beams were safe. Justice Fagan therefore found that the employer had not established that Mr Pratt was contributorily negligent.
Loss of earning capacity
Mr Pratt had not returned to work since the accident. The Court found that his ongoing physical pain, limited mobility and psychological difficulties had effectively prevented him from returning to labouring or moving into another occupation.
The Court also considered Mr Pratt’s previous employment history, including his experience as a labourer and his qualifications in welding. While the Court found that his employment history had been inconsistent, it accepted that the accident had resulted in a substantial and permanent loss of his ability to earn an income.
Damages
The Court assessed Mr Pratt’s past and future economic losses, including lost earnings and superannuation. After taking into account the uncertainty surrounding the work he might otherwise have undertaken and deducting workers compensation payments he had already received, the Court awarded him a total of $1,030,742.67.
Result
Justice Fagan entered judgment for Mr Pratt in the sum of $1,030,742.67. The question of legal costs was to be determined separately.
Significance
The decision highlights the importance of employers having a safe system of work, particularly when employees are working around heavy machinery and potentially unstable materials.
It also demonstrates that an employee will not necessarily be found responsible for an injury simply because they physically approached a dangerous situation. Where an employee reasonably follows an instruction from a supervisor, the circumstances in which the instruction was given will be important in determining responsibility for the resulting injury.
Pratt v Ditton also shows the potentially significant financial consequences of a workplace injury where the worker is unable to return to employment and suffers a permanent loss of earning capacity.
This case can be read in full here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1a05ac54efc644e578110b09
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.