Walker v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 329
- Incident on 12 June 2015 at or around 5pm.
- Decision delivered on 29 October 2020
Background Facts
The plaintiff is Scott Gregory Walker (the plaintiff). The plaintiff was employed by Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd (the defendant) as a maintenance manager at a meatworks run by the defendant.
On the evening of 12 June 2015, a few hours after finishing work, the plaintiff was driving home past his workplace and noticed plumes of steam venting from a malfunctioning relief valve on the boiler. The evidence was that the plant at the defendant’s workplace depended on the boiler working, and if the boiler literally ‘ran out of steam’, the source of the leak would be lost.
The plaintiff investigated the leak and made contact with a contractor regularly used by the defendant. The contractor informed the plaintiff that the leaking valve had to be identified so the contractor’s company could repair it over the weekend. The plaintiff soon found himself on the roof of the rendering shed, trying to ascertain the origin of the leak.
Many years earlier, contrary to the plaintiff’s advice, alsynite sheeting was installed where a leaking pipe had rusted a hole in the metal roof of the rendering shed to prevent the rust from worsening. This was done by another manager of the defendant.
At the time, the plaintiff was focused on trying to identify the leaking valve, and in doing so stepped on a sheet of alsynite, which gave way. The plaintiff fell seven metres to the concrete floor below, sustaining a fracture to his skull, multiple injuries to his spine, knees and wrist and suffering a moderate brain injury (the incident).
Liability Issues
There is no dispute that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care at the time of the incident, particularly given that he was doing his job in trying to locate the source of the leak from the boiler.
Before the incident, the plaintiff had been on the platform which is situated between the roof of the rendering shed and the hot water and tallow tanks. However, he could not recall being on the roof, which was not a regular place that workers were required to go. 1
At the time, the plaintiff would have been unable to determine the alsynite panels and the tin of the roof. Applegarth J states at [63] that, although the plaintiff “had known that alsynite panels had been installed on the roof, he did not appreciate that they were located in the vicinity he was contemplating standing upon. Their presence did not enter his thinking on the night. He did not think they were where they were.”
There was evidence submitted of a previous electrician accessing the roof, for which he was not given any instructions or training by the defendant regarding working at heights.
The defendant argued that any warnings or directions issued to the plaintiff by the defendant would not have prevented his actions. However, the plaintiff’s position was that of a responsible person with an ability to follow rules and systems. Applegarth J believed that he would therefore have observed any instructions from the defendant.
At [66], Applegarth J provides:
“[63] [The plaintiff’s] actions were motivated by a sense of duty. He sought advice from [the contractor] who impressed upon him that [the contractor] needed to know which valve was leaking so they could try to fix it over the weekend. This sense of urgency was not unreasonable. The leak did not present a danger. However, if the source of the leak was not identified on the Friday evening then there would have been substantial delays on the Saturday in locating it. If the source of the leak had not been identified on the Friday evening, there was a high chance that the boiler would be empty and not leaking steam the next morning…”
Further, the contractor’s evidence was that the plaintiff did what the contractor, an expert in the field, would have done in the circumstances. The plaintiff perceived that the problem was urgent, and it was found that the plaintiff’s actions were undertaken in “the performance of an important duty. He sought and obtained advice from an expert independent contractor about how to find the source of the leak.”
Importantly, Applegarth J provides at [73]:
“[73] Although [the plaintiff] was taking a risk, he did not appreciate the extent of risk he was taking. It was not a case of appreciating that he was engaging in risky activity, including walking in the vicinity of alsynite panels. He engaged in objectively risky activity in discharging his duty as a maintenance manager in a circumstance of perceived urgency. He was concerned that unless the location of the defect could be ascertained, production of the entire plant might have to stop on Monday. [74] Nothing caused him to stop and think about the potential danger to his own safety. Nothing told him that he should not go on the roof at all, or at least not go on the roof without a safety harness. No barrier or gate stopped or impeded his access to the roof. There was no barrier around the alsynite panel which would warn him of its presence and stop him from stepping onto it.”
Decision
Applegarth J found the defendant’s negligence to have caused the incident. The plaintiff’s actions were considered to be an inadvertent error of judgment made under pressure, falling short of contributory negligence.
Judgment was given to the plaintiff for $967,383.39.