Plaintiff alleged the absence of proper training led to inability to assess and mitigate risks

Ritchie James Edward Lowe v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 204

The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland over four days in August 2022

Justice Horneman-Wren dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

Background

The Plaintiff was a 22 year old butcher who suffered a severe laceration, with subsequent partial amputation, to his right index finger in an incident at work on 1 April 2019.

The Plaintiff alleged that whilst he was using a bandsaw to cut up meat, his right index finger slid and came into contact with the blade of the bandsaw causing a deep laceration.

The Plaintiff’s key allegations included:

• Inadequate Training and Instruction - the employer failed to provide sufficient training on safely operating the bandsaw, particularly concerning the risk of fingers contacting the blade.
• Unsafe Workstation – the workstation provided by the employer did not allow the plaintiff to perform his duties without risking personal injury.
• Improper System of Work –the employer failed to implement and enforce a safe system of work for tasks involving the bandsaw.
• Lack of Risk Assessment - the plaintiff contended that the employer did not conduct adequate risk assessments for tasks performed with the bandsaw.
• Inappropriate Equipment - the employer failed to provide suitable equipment, such as push sticks or blade guards, to ensure safe operation of the bandsaw.
• Insufficient Supervision – a lack of adequate supervision while the Plaintiff was performing tasks with the bandsaw.

The plaintiff alleged the absence of proper training led to his inability to assess and mitigate risks associated with operating the bandsaw, especially when cutting smaller, slippery pieces of meat. He also alleged that the workstation lacked necessary safety features, such as a blade stop function and adjustable blade guides or guards, which could have prevented the injury.

Decision

Liability

Despite the foreseeable risk of injury posed by the bandsaw, his Honour concluded that the Plaintiff failed to prove any of the alleged breaches of duty. His Honour observed that the risks associated with the task and the steps the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant should have taken were inconsistent with the allegations in the Plaintiff’s final submissions bearing little resemblance to those originally pleaded and particularised. Additionally, some of the allegations that were properly pleaded were abandoned due to a lack of supporting evidence, while others were contradicted or disproven by the Plaintiff’s own evidence.

In particular, his Honour found:

• The Plaintiff was adequately trained and instructed in his duties;
• The Plaintiff’s technique for gripping the cuts of meat was firm and appropriate;
• There was no evidence to suggest any issues with the speed of the task or the Plaintiff’s ability to keep up;
• The Plaintiff maintained focus while using the bandsaw;
• The Plaintiff had no concerns about the slipperiness or size of the meat on the day of the incident;
• If the Plaintiff did have concerns, he knew he could raise them with a supervisor;
• No evidence suggested that the size or slipperiness of the meat contributed to the incident;
• The bandsaw blade was not blunt;
• The Defendant had assessed the risk of an operator coming into close proximity with the exposed blade, implemented work systems to mitigate this risk, and adequately trained the Plaintiff, who felt confident performing the task safely;
• Regarding the Plaintiff’s claim that he should have used a newer bandsaw with blade stop technology:
  • The Defendant demonstrated that replacing the bandsaw with one featuring blade stop technology required significant capital expenditure, which was contingent upon the successful development of new markets. His Honour accepted that the delay in replacing the bandsaw was reasonable under the circumstances;
  • There was no evidence to suggest that using a bandsaw with blade stop technology would have prevented the incident. The blade stop would only have reduced the severity of the injury;
  • His Honour rejected the recommendations of the Plaintiff’s liability expert regarding the use of using jigs, fixtures, and push sticks, on the basis such recommendations were ill-conceived and unscientific. He further noted that while such safety measures may apply in woodworking, they were irrelevant to meat processing due to distinct hygiene considerations.

His Honour also remarked that “not all workplace incidents and the resultant injuries can be attributed to an employer’s negligence, no matter how the worker perceives events or rationalizes their cause, or how broadly the case is pleaded.”

Accordingly, his Honour found that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case and the claim was dismissed.

Quantum

Regarding quantum, his Honour was critical of the Plaintiff’s lack of motivation to return to work, particularly given the medical records that indicated the Plaintiff was eager to resume playing rugby league.

The Defendant successfully demonstrated that the Plaintiff unreasonably failed to mitigate his loss. The Court accepted the Defendant’s evidence that the Plaintiff did not seek redeployment due to disengagement with the employer, and there was no evidence to suggest that the Plaintiff’s limited communication with the Defendant was due to any restrictions in his role.

His Honour concluded that it was the Plaintiff’s own actions in disengaging from his employment, despite being medically cleared to return to work, that ended his permanent employment with the Defendant. His Honour did not consider the Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his loss reasonable.

In terms of future economic loss, His Honour found no evidentiary foundation for the Plaintiff’s claim for future loss of earnings. The Plaintiff’s demonstrated pattern of voluntarily leaving employment raised doubts about his future job security, which was consistent with the uncertainty faced by all workers. The Plaintiff’s attempt to apply for three jobs after disengaging from the Defendant did not demonstrate active efforts to secure alternative employment. His Honour concluded that there was work available within the Plaintiff’s abilities, and that work was better paid than the work that he performed with the Defendant.

Consequently, his Honour made a modest global assessment of $45,000 for future economic loss.

If the Plaintiff had been successful, His Honour would have assessed damages in the sum of $72,005.58 clear of the refund.