Here is a real life scenario!
Case Review: Tompkins v Kemp Meats Pty Ltd [2013]
Background
In this case, the plaintiff, a 44-year-old slaughterman, was employed by Kemp Meats Pty Ltd and worked on the abattoir’s killing floor. While performing the task of ‘fronting out’ a pig, he cut the top of his left (non-dominant) thumb.
Despite the injury, the plaintiff continued working. Two days later, his thumb became infected. Following treatment and a return to work with alternate duties, he was diagnosed with a severed extensor tendon. Surgery was required, but a post-operative infection ensued.
The plaintiff complained of ongoing stiffness and a lack of grip strength, ultimately resigning from his position 15 months post-incident. He subsequently took on alternative employment as a rigger, delivery driver, and storeman for a butcher.
Liability
The defendant, Kemp Meats, argued contributory negligence on the plaintiff’s part, citing:
- The plaintiff’s failure to wear cut-resistant gloves provided by the employer.
- His experience as a meat worker and familiarity with the risks.
- A prior history of cuts.
However, the court found that:
- The employer’s system of work was faulty, as wearing gloves should have been a mandatory requirement.
- There were insufficient gloves available for all workers.
The court rejected the argument of contributory negligence, placing full responsibility on the employer for failing to enforce a safe system of work.
Judgment
Judge Durward delivered the verdict on 17 July 2013, awarding:
- $337,113.55 to the plaintiff (clear of statutory refund),
- Costs on a standard basis to the plaintiff.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Mandatory PPE Enforcement:
Employers must ensure that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), such as cut-resistant gloves, is not only provided but enforced as part of standard workplace practices. - Adequate Supply of PPE:
Employers must maintain sufficient stock of PPE for all employees. Lack of availability can undermine compliance efforts and lead to liability. - Worker Responsibility Does Not Dilute Employer Obligations:
Even if workers choose not to use safety equipment, employers remain accountable for providing a safe system of work. - Risks of Non-Compliance:
This case highlights the significant financial and reputational risks to employers when failing to enforce workplace safety measures, particularly in high-risk industries like meat processing.
This judgment underscores the importance of robust WHS practices and serves as a stark reminder that enforcement of safety standards is non-negotiable.