Contributory Negligence – It pays to be proactive
In a recent decision of Kennedy v Queensland Alumina Limited [2015] QSC 317, the Supreme Court of Queensland reduced the award of damages made to an injured worker by 50% on account of contributory negligence.
Kennedy was employed by Queensland Aluminia. On 15th January 2012 he was sprayed with caustic solution whilst opening a pipe in the course of replacing a ‘blind’ in suction line. He suffered burns to his left ankle and developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He was supposed to isolate the pipe to ensure there wasn’t significant quantity of caustic solution and not under pressure from the tank above. Kennedy accidentally opened the pump suction valve and then failed to isolate the pipe, resulting in the accident.
It was found that Kennedy erroneously opened the pump suction value when he should have closed it and he failed to confirm the mechanisms pipe was isolated before breaking open the pipework which was contrary to his training. This therefore meant Contributory Negligence according to the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. In this case 50%.
The Court concluded that Kennedy’s departure from the standards expected of a reasonable worker was substantial. It’s effect on the occurrence of his injury was very significant and, therefore, liability was apportioned as between Kennedy and Queensland Alumina Limited.
Kennedy was awarded $191,061.91
Whilst the plantiff was still awarded a sum it could have been more if Queensland Alumina hadn’t undertaking training and instructions and had safe operating procedures in place the amount awarded would have been more. It pays to make all efforts to prevent accidents – in more ways than one.