Introduction In this report an in depth analysis was undertaken to identify the SSHE principles conducted on the findings and relevance from case ‘Inspector Petar Ankucic v Drake Personnel Limited, t/as Drake [1997] NSWIRComm 157’ on the 25th of November 1997. A brief introduction to the cases established the defendant Drake Personnel Limited liable for the injuries sustained by labourer employee Michael Stephen Douglas whom was carrying our duties at Warman Industrial a specialist designer and manufacturer of slurry pumps. The employee was contracted to perform packing duties and the role of a general store person. Douglas was a holidaying resident from the United Kingdom and was employed by Drake Personnel in various companies performing …show more content…
The key issue established was the labourer acquired for the position did not meet the experience or qualification needed to perform these duties. A period of approximately two to three weeks had passed while during this period the employer did not engage into the relevant training required to perform the duties instead turned a blind eye to the safety and welfare of its employee. A match between previous experience and required duties was not correctly established which eventually concluded in a severe injury. The employer was aware of duties required to be performed at the workplace but had indicated to its employee that the array of duties would be of similar nature to his expertise of forklift operation, understandable the employee was bound by his position to not refuse work and carry out his required obligation to received a weekly wage although he was incapable of the required skills needed. (Saluzinsky, …show more content…
Another aspect of formal training that was not provided was the identification of surrounding dangers involved with the operation of the saw or the manual removal of the sawdust from the housing saw cabinet. Due to the saw recently being installed in the factory premises no identification was address regarding the use of the saw. The saw was factory fitted with sawdust extractor vents to eliminate the periodic manual removal although this system was not installed at the Warman workplace. Drake Personnel has failed to enforce a cease work action to not operating woodworking machinery at the Warman workplace until formal training or instruction was provided to Douglas. The training would ensure a detailed understanding of the machinery and its operation, the correct use of the machinery and the required actions to be performed as use of the machinery on a daily basis. (Wales,
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
(5 points) Based on the facts of the case you have selected, is it possible the employer can also be held criminally liable? Explain your answer.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
Western Australian Department of Education. (2010). Occupational Safety and Health. WA: Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.det.wa.edu.au/policies/detcms/policy-planning-and-accountability/policies-framework/policies/occupational-safety-and-health.en?bbp.s=9&bbp.e=select&bbp.v=4&bbp.i=d0.1&bbp.8.policyID=10918572&g11n.enc=UTF-8&bbp.9.pane=0
Pursuant to section 561 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act), the Prosecution counsel seeks an appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland, from the decision of the Industrial Magistrates Court given on 11/10/2017.
They’re a lot of cattle anyway.” This reflects negatively on the neglect and passivity of factory owners and inspectors because of their unwillingness to protect the safety and wellbeing of factory owners.Within the same document, it Mr. H.F.J Porter mentioned that “There are only two or three factories in the city where fire drills are in use. In some of them where I have installed the system myself, the owners have discontinued it.” This is yet again another example of how neglectful factory regulators can be to employees and that they pay little attention to their health just to earn money in an easier but cruel way. Employees on the other hand, form unions to rebel against poor conditions, low pay, and long work hours. The employees also went on strike. They knew that they needed to prevent themselves and other employees from falling into the trap of harsh conditions of factories. The owners eventually raised their pay and shortened hours, but did not improve the working conditions of the
McGuire, C. (2011, April). Workplace Safety 100 Years Ago. Safety Compliance Letter(2524), 1-6. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=60166397&site=ehost-live&scope=site
"Workplace Safety." Labour Program. Government of Canada, 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. .
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
of workers do not possess the basic skills to perform the job. It would appear
In opposition to Lord McDermott who was allowing the appeal and mentioned “...if a particular workman is likely to suffer a graver injury than his fellows [this] must be taken into consideration when assessing the nature of the employer's obligation to that workman”. This highlights how not all judges agreed to be in favour of Mr Paris, although the court was in favour of
The origins of the CMCH Act is suggested to be an outcome of the 1994 discussion paper of the Law Commission which assessed the law of ‘involuntary manslaughter’. One of the basic elements of the Act is the ‘relevant duty of care’ with regards to the organisation and its ‘employees’ coupled with other ‘entities’. Moreover, the formation of the presence of relevant duty of care requires the application of the doctrines and precedence from the previously decided cases which established the law of negligence. The test laid down in Caparo serves as an important factor in determining negligence, and thereby constituting relevant duty of care. Additionally, the three stage test laid down in Caparo includes ‘foreseeability of damage’, a ‘relationship
The judge accepted the facts, but held that to constitute an injury by accident the workman must be suddenly and decisively attacked at his work, and that the gradual ruining of his blood vessels did not bring him within the Acts. (Unknown, P.
4. Don't underestimate the importance of safety Woodworking is a very risky profession with a number of serious hazards. The tools used in this line of work such as power drill, nail gun and the different types of saws can cause serious injuries to you or people around you if you fail to observe safety. It is advisable to take the time to learn about your tools and safety mistakes to avoid.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.