Court Summary - at a glance

Date of offence:
29 January 2015
 
Plea:
Guilty
 
Decision:
Convicted
 
Final decision date:
 
Fine imposed:
$33,000

Safety lessons learned:

Children

  • Ensure that the policy prohibiting children under the age of 15 on site was effectively communicated to all contractors, workers on site and delivery drivers through, for example by:
  • covering the policy in the site induction; and
  • emailing the policy to all suppliers delivering to the site.
  • Ensure that once the policy prohibiting children was effectively communicated, compliance with it is effectively monitored and enforced;

Hazard identification and communication

  • Ensure that inadvertent movement of delivery vehicles is identified as a hazard prior to use of the loading bay; and
  • Communicate to contractors that the loading bay is situated on sloping ground prior to use of the loading bay, including an assessment of the gradient.

Defendant name:
Ebert Construction Limited
 
Industry:
Building and construction
 
Date of offence:
29 January 2015
 
Facts in brief:
The Defendant company was the head contractor for a commercial construction. Reoco Limited was subcontracted to supply and deliver steel works.

On the day of the incident, a driver employed by Reoco parked a truck in a designated loading bay adjacent to the construction site. The loading bay was on a slope. The driver left a child in the cab of the truck while unloading the steel. The truck rolled 22 metres downhill and hit the victim.

The victim sustained a broken pelvis, crushed bicep, three broken front teeth and one knocked out, numerous head and facial lacerations, an internal abdomen laceration and nerve damage both to his leg and abdomen
 
Related prosecutions:
 
Offence section:
Sections 16(1)(a) and 50(1)(a) of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
 
Date(s) charged:

Court:
Auckland - District Court
 
Plea:
Guilty
 
Final decision date:
 
Decision:
Convicted
 
Fine imposed:
$33,000
 
Maximum fine available:
$250,000
 
Reparation:
$30,000 (a total order of $60,000 was apportioned equally between the two Defendants)
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe