Summary:

Carbone Lawyers obtained a Jury Verdict of $1,221.000 in the County Court of Victoria for a worker who suffered severe injuries while performing maintenance on machinery.

Key Points:

• The worker’s hand was crushed between rollers when the machine he was fixing restarted suddenly.
• The accident caused physical, psychological and emotional injury, impacting his relationships, reducing his quality of life and diminishing his prospects of future employment.
• On day 6 of the 9-day trial, the defendant conceded liability and proceeded on a contributory negligence defence.
• The Jury determined that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was 2%, with the Defendant’s being 98% at fault.
• This case underscores the importance of clear safety protocols in industrial settings. Employers must ensure that all machinery is adequately guarded and workers are properly trained to prevent workplace injuries.

Case Details:

Carbone Lawyers represented the plaintiff, who sued his employer, alleging that negligence and a breach of statutory duty led to a severe hand injury while operating factory machinery.

The injury occurred in 2015 at a steel fabrication factory in an industrial estate in Melbourne’s outer west, where the plaintiff was employed. While fixing a hydraulic airline of a steel mill, the machine unexpectedly restarted, crushing the worker’s hand between the rollers.

A critical question for the jury was who restarted the machine—the plaintiff or his co-worker? The plaintiff contends that the machine was in semi-automatic mode, and other safety measures were in place, which he believed would prevent it from moving while he worked. However, the machine restarted, leading to the accident. He claimed that a co-worker was near the control panel and initially refused to assist when he screamed for help.

The plaintiff’s legal team argued that his injuries were the direct result of his employer’s failure to ensure a safe working environment. This included:

• The lack of proper machine guarding was a direct safety failure.
• The company’s post-accident decision to install additional light curtains suggests that previous safety measures were inadequate.
• He followed the safety procedures, but there was no safe way to adjust the airline without stepping into a hazardous zone.
• As the company’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident, it was fully liable for damages, including pain and suffering, lost earnings, and ongoing medical expenses.

Counsel for the defendant, the plant operator, did not dispute that safety protocols failed but argued that the worker bears some responsibility for his injury. Their defence focused on:

• His failure to use Maintenance Mode, which would have fully disabled the hydraulics.
• Testimony from the co-worker, who claims he was 10 meters away at the time of the accident and did not restart the machine.
• That it was the plaintiff’s own inattention and choice to use Semi-Auto Mode that contributed to the accident.

After 9 days of hearing evidence and arguments, the jury was tasked with determining:

• Whether the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the incident.
• The level of damages owed, if any, and whether a reduction should be applied for contributory negligence.

Outcome:

The Jury’s verdict was to set contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff at 2%, with the Defendant determined to be 98%. They awarded the injured worker damages of $1,221,000 for pain and suffering, medical costs and loss of future earnings. *

*Details of this case have been omitted or obscured to protect the identity of the parties.