Employer Obligation to Maintain Equipment

The recent Supreme Court decision of Verney v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd highlights the need for employers to maintain tools and equipment so as to avoid exposing workers to unnecessary risks of injury.

Macrossan & Amiet represented Mr Verney in the matter, which involved a claim for damages against his former employer, when it came on for hearing before Justice North in Mackay in the week beginning 3 March 2014.

Mr Verney sustained injuries during the course of his employment as a boilermaker and labourer with The Mac Group at their work site at Coppabella on 3
May 2011, while constructing accommodation facilities for the company’s workers.

He was pushing a wheelbarrow full of blue metal/crusher dust to a designated position at the site when the wheelbarrow frame broke, causing him to fall over a 1 metre high embankment and injure his lower back.
In giving evidence, Mr Verney told the Court that when he loaded the wheelbarrow with crusher dust he filled it full but did not overload it.
He said that he had used that particular wheelbarrow 5 to 10 times previously that day and had not struggled to use it.

The Court heard from Mr Verney and several of his former coworkers at The Mac Group that several wheelbarrows were defective. Many of the wheelbarrows’ frames had snapped with bolts having been welded back onto brackets in an attempt to repair them. In the days following the incident, one of Mr Verney’s former coworkers was directed by his supervisors to throw the wheelbarrow used by Mr Verney, along with several other wheelbarrows which were defective, into a skip.

There was also evidence of complaints made by workers about the condition of the wheelbarrows, which were ignored. The culture on the site at the time was to use equipment, notwithstanding that it might be faulty, in order to meet deadlines. Despite the evidence, The Mac Group did not admit liability.
Further, the company did not provide any evidence of what steps were taken to check or service their tools and equipment.

Finding in Mr Verney’s favour, Justice North said that by supplying him with the defective wheelbarrow The Mac Group breached the duty of care it owed
to him, which in turn caused Mr Verney’s injury and subsequent loss and damage.

Justice North referred to the High Court’s decision in Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] 200 CLR 211, in relation to the duty of care owed by an employer, stating that: “An employer must take reasonable care to provide a safe system of work and a safe place of work. An employer must provide proper and adequate means of carrying out the employee’s work without unnecessary risks.”

His Honour also referred to the High Court’s statement in the same case, that employers have a duty of care to procure suitable equipment and then to ensure that this equipment is inspected from time to time against reasonably detectable risks of failure or deterioration.
Justice North said that as The Mac Group did not provide evidence of any program that it had in place for checking or monitoring their tools and equipment, it failed to show that it had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the wheelbarrow was safe for work.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mr Verney’s case reminds us that the reasonable standard of care for an employee’s safety is not a low one and that accident prevention is unquestionably one of the modern responsibilities of an employer.