Supervisor’s Failure Highlighted After Fall from Bridge |
Take the guesswork out of HR compliance with My Business Workplace. Learn more.
Premium content decoration
Managing risk

Supervisor’s Failure Highlighted After Fall From Bridge

When a carpenter fell into a river and ‘three years of hell’, the Court’s focus landed on the supervisor’s role. Read about what went wrong.

10 Jul 2024

By Gaby Grammeno Contributor

A formwork carpenter was employed by a construction company engaged in demolishing and rebuilding a bridge over the Castlereagh River in New South Wales.


On 12 August 2021, the carpenter was carrying lengths of steel reinforcement along the bridge girders with the site supervisor and fixing steel in preparation for a concrete slab pour. He and another worker had placed steel infill panels in the void between the pair of parallel girders, with the carpenter screwing the sheets into the concrete girders.

As the two men were walking along the girders, the carpenter lost his footing and stepped on one of the steel infill panels. It dislodged, plunging the carpenter five metres through the void and into the riverbed below.

The workers who rushed to his aid found him lying on his back in 150-200mm of water, wedged into the sandy riverbed. The site supervisor supported his head so that it was out of the freezing water until emergency services arrived and he was helicoptered to hospital.

The fall left him with concussion and neck and back pain due to impingement of nerve roots and joints, with associated muscle spasms.

SafeWork NSW charged the company with failing to comply with its work health and safety duty and exposing workers to a risk of serious injury or death.

IN COURT

SafeWork alleged that the company had failed to take available measures to eliminate or minimise the risk.

NSW District Court Judge David Russell heard that bridge design typically makes allowance for the girders bowing. Still, the effect of some girders bowing was that the pre-cut steel infill panels were not long enough to be adequately attached to both girders.

When concerns about the ill-fitting infill sheets were raised, the project manager instructed the workers to take extra infill panels and screw them together so they’d span the void. This was not done, as the carpenter thought this method had failed in the past. Neither the supervisor nor the carpenter told the project manager the workers did not intend to follow the method.

In almost all areas, the infill panels were sitting firmly against the vertical face of the rebate area and between each bridge girder. However, in the area where the carpenter fell, the gap between the bridge girders was too big, and the workers were unable to secure the panels to the girders. Nevertheless, when asked, the workers told the supervisor they were happy with the coverage of the void.

Judge Russell found that it was not enough for the site supervisor to just ask if the infill panels were satisfactory. His documented responsibilities included an obligation to ‘continually observe the process of work for substandard practices/methods’. He should have inspected the infill panels, particularly as the bowing and the excessive gap between the beams was known.

Practical steps were available to eliminate or minimise the significant risk of a fall. SafeWork said the company should have:

  • prohibited construction work on the bridge until it was confirmed that the infill panels were securely fixed in place
  • developed, implemented and enforced a safe system of work for the installation of right-sized infill panels securely fixed to the girders, and
  • documented the system of work in a Safe Work Method Statement and trained and instructed workers in the prescribed safe work method.
  • The company admitted it should have prohibited construction work on the bridge until it was confirmed that the infill panels were securely fixed in place.

The injury was serious, and greatly affected the carpenter. He said the three years since the incident had been 'absolute hell' for him and his family, not least because he became depressed and angry.

In deciding on the sentence, Judge Russell considered the company’s previous conviction after a fatal accident involving a fall while unloading a truck.

He said that two serious safety breaches in less than four years led him to conclude that the most recent offence was ‘not an uncharacteristic aberration’, and he had to consider the previous offence an aggravating factor.

The mitigating factors were that the company was otherwise of good character, unlikely to re-offend, had shown remorse and pleaded guilty.

The company was convicted in the District Court of New South Wales on 20 June 2024, after pleading guilty.

The appropriate fine of $400,000 was reduced by 25% to reflect the early guilty plea, to $300,000 plus costs.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR EMPLOYERS

Training and instruction for supervisors should emphasise the need for adequate supervision through direct observation and verification where practicable, rather than over-reliance on the assertions of others.

READ THE JUDGMENT

SafeWork NSW v Saunders Civilbuild Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 245 (27 June 2024)


Gaby Grammeno Contributor

Gaby has extensive experience as a researcher, writer, editor and project manager on a wide variety of information products, including books, guides, reports and submissions.

YOUR HR SIDEKICK

From contracts of employment to letters of termination and everything in between, My Business Workplace has got you covered.
Find out more