On 31 January 2024, a company and its director were each sentenced in the Townsville Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’) when a worker fell after and inadequately supported steel truck trailer body overbalanced, toppled and struck him in the head and face knocking him to the ground. He sustained serious facial fracture injuries.

The company operated a steel fabrication business from premises located at Townsville. It has two directors and employed approximately 31 workers in its business, including the injured worker who was employed as a spray painter.

The workplace has three spray painting booths located within its boundaries. On occasion, as required, it utilises a forklift to move various items within its workplace. To carry out the spray painting task fabricated steel items require cleaning. This entails blowing off dust/debris from the items surface, wiping down the surfaces and, as needed, removal of welding slag. The injured worker routinely undertook this preparation work as a usual part of his daily duties. Items to be painted are routinely placed on steel stands within the spray booth to permit painting on all surfaces.

On the 20^th of June 2022 the injured worker and his manager (a director of the company) were preparing a large newly fabricated truck trailer for spray painting. This item would need to be prepared as noted above. The manager was operating the forklift to lift the item and to move it in to the spray booth. Once inside the booth, the manager centrally located the trailer in the booth and two steel support stands were placed by him and the injured worker centrally along the length of the trailer with the trailer then lowered on to these stands.

The injured person commenced his preparation works and as a part of this work he moved a 60 litre drum alongside the right-hand side of the trailer to use as a platform so he could reach the upper parts of the trailer. To climb on to the top of the drum the injured worker has grasped a side rail of the trailer and has then leveraged himself by pulling himself up on to the drum top. As he did this the trailer commenced to topple and fall towards him. The injured person fell and was struck by the falling trailer receiving significant fracture injuries to his head and face.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Inspectors attended and undertook investigations. The truck tray weighed 800-900kgs with two full length rails running down the middle of the trailer body and one side had a full length cabinet installed. Centrally located on the two stands it would have been at a height of 1.20 metres, with the two rails resting on those stands. The truck tray would not have been stable, particularly to sideways forces. The tray’s stability would have been further compromised with the full length cabinet down one side meaning it was heavier on that side.

As noted above, the worker has accessed the drum from the side of the truck tray on which the cabinet was located so that he could clean the top of that cabinet and in doing so the trailer has commenced to topple resulting in him being injured. Two workers, including the injured person, stated that they used, from time to time, a drum to undertake work at height in the spray painting booth.

Her Honour observed that the use of only two stands to support the large truck trailer was inadequate as was the use of the drum as a work platform to carry out work at height. Her Honour noted the injured worker had not been trained in work at height, though the company had some procedures relating to this activity, and that he had stated he had used a drum on other occasions. Her Honour accepted the prosecution submission that the use of a drum for this purpose ought to have been prohibited and that the trailer should have been supported with either, more stands, or other large stands to ensure it was stable.

Her Honour noted that there was no safe work method statement prepared for the work task and that this resulted in almost no safety measures being implemented by the duty holder. Her Honour noted that the injured worker’s manager was the one who was in charge of the work and had placed the item on the (inadequate) stands. Her Honour observed the incident had resulted in significant injuries to the injured person and, referring to the victim impact statement, some medical issues were ongoing. Her Honour referred to the post-incident measures implemented and the costs of these. Her Honour accepted defence submissions that the truck trailer was a one-off fabrication and an unusual design which had contributed to a lack of consideration of how to support it though balanced this with an observation the risk therefore was likely greater.

Her Honour accepted in relation to the company and the director that there had been a timely plea of guilty, cooperation and neither defendant had any previous convictions. In imposing penalty her Honour stated that specific deterrence was less a consideration given the extensive safety improvements though general deterrence and denunciation were relevant to assessing the appropriate penalty.

OWHSP contact: enquiries@owhsp.qld.gov.au