Injury caused by lack of training – $320K damages

The employer of a battery delivery driver, whose back was injured when he exited from his truck, has been ordered to pay damages of more than $320,000.


The Supreme Court of Queensland found the injury was caused by the employer’s failure to provide training and failure to ensure the driver followed safe work procedures.

Working with a vulnerable back


38-year-old man in search of employment sought medical attention for lower back pain in 2011 and was told he had a bulging disc at the L4/5 level. Conventional treatment did not help, but exercise using what he referred to as an ‘inversion table’ provided relief. So in November 2011, when he was interviewed for a job as a driver to deliver batteries for motor vehicles and marine vessels, he mentioned his recent back problem, which he believed had been resolved. He was hired and took up the job early in 2012.


From January 2012 to August 2013, the driver suffered intermittent back, buttock and leg pain. He reported it to his manager on more than one occasion and relied on use of his inversion table for relief. His work was often heavy. He was required to handle on average more than 1200 batteries a day. Some of them weighed well over 20 kg, a few up to about 50 kg, and could be loaded by forklift, but there was not always a forklift or even a trolley available for the unloading

Jumping from truck cabin was unsafe


On 21 August 2013, the driver damaged the intervertebral disc at the L4/5 level when he exited from the cabin of his truck. Facing outwards, he raised himself out of the seat and dropped about 0.5 m to the ground. He suffered extreme left-sided pain and was surgically treated with a discectomy. The employer’s workers compensation insurance covered the cost.


Within weeks of the operation, however, he developed right-sided pain at the same level. But in spite of the surgeon’s opinion that the symptom had arisen as a result of the discectomy, WorkCover Queensland refused to fund a revision discectomy on the basis that the driver’s right-sided pain had been caused by his pre-existing degenerative condition.

Was lack of training at the root of the negligence?


In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the driver brought an action in negligence against his employer, both for the lower back injury and for secondary psychological injury. The driver contended that the employer had breached its duty of care to him by failing to provide training in manual handling techniques and a safe way of exiting from the truck, namely by facing the cabin and maintaining three points of contact. The employer alleged a driving instructor had provided training but at the same time argued there had been no foreseeable risk of injury in the manner in which the driver had descended from the cabin.


Expert engineering consultants provided evidence that the handling of batteries involved a risk of musculoskeletal injuries, in relation to which training should have been provided. The delivery truck should also have been equipped with mechanical lifting aids. Descending from the truck by jumping 0.5 m involved a risk of compression loading or jarring of the driver’s spine. Training in safe ways of descending should have been provided, and relevant guidance had been available in documents such as the Queensland Government Workplace Health and Safety Road Freight Transport Health and Safety Guide from 2000 and the Queensland Government Department of Industrial Relations Workplace Health and Safety Hazard Identification Checklist: Road Freight Transport Industry.

Medical specialists held different views


A problem with the medical evidence was that there was no consistency in the language used by the doctors to describe the driver’s descent from the truck. Some referred to him ‘stepping’ from the cabin and others to ‘jumping’. This seemed to affect their understanding of the cause of the ongoing pain.


Justice Ryan formed the opinion that the most likely cause of the right-sided sciatica was changes in the joint arising from the surgery, and the least likely cause was the progression of degenerative change.


Regarding the psychological problems, there was less disagreement. The driver’s ongoing pain and loss of function had given rise to a depressive disorder. However, the employer’s specialist regarded it as fairly mild (resulting in a 4% impairment) and the driver’s specialist as more serious (first assessed as a 15% impairment in 2015 and reduced to 13% by 2018).

Inadequate training at heart of the matter


Justice Ryan found that the employer was in breach of its duty of care to the driver first of all because of its failure to to provide manual handling training. It had taken ‘no precautions at all against the risk of injury inherent in the handling of at least some of the batteries’, he said.


Yet, the driver had not established a causative link between the lack of manual handling training and his injury. It was the descent form the truck that had been shown to cause the damage to his spine at the L4/5 level. A reasonable person in the employer’s position would have consulted the guidance material identified by the expert engineering consultants and realised that the driver was exposed to a significant foreseeable risk of injury. It should have trained him to reverse out of the cabin and ensure three points of contact and, if necessary, reminded him to comply.


The justice was prepared to accept that the driver may not have understood what the training instructor may have said about exiting the truck, but he was not prepared to find that the driver had deliberately disobeyed the instructor.


The driver had been conscientious enough to mention his previous back problem when interviewed for the job, and there was no reason to think he would not have followed clear work instructions given to him. The employer had breached its duty of care for its failure to provide training relating to the safety of the truck as well.


Justice Ryan assessed the damages and gave judgment for the driver in the sum of $320,865.79.

Kelleher v J & A Accessories Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 227 (4 October 2018)

Originally posted on Workplace OHS

Contact Us

Zenergy News

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.
22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."
22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure
16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch
16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality
16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: