Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 JUNE 2017

Case study – comprehensive CoR induction an important part of a successful defence

Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Contributor
Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich is a large national commercial firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Holding Redlich

Transport companies involved must be seen to have taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the drivers' safety.

AustraliaTransport

Although not a Chain of Responsibility (CoR) case, Henry v CSBP Ltd [2017] WADC 1 is an excellent example of the importance of a properly implemented safety induction and compliance program in defending any claim for safety breach.

This case relates to a liquid nitrogen fertiliser loading facility at Kwinana, WA. The loading facility was a self-service station which allowed drivers to park a tanker, lower a loading platform over the filling port and fill the tanker with fertiliser without risk of falling.

The plaintiff driver in question would routinely leave a gap between the tank and the platform because he was under the impression that the truck's water tank prevented the platform from being lowered further. On one such occasion the driver slipped, fell through the gap some distance to the ground and was injured. The driver alleged, among other things, that CSBP Ltd and the tanker/driver supplier company (for which the driver was a contractor) failed to warn of

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from