OHS WorkCover Report  

News report style

Construction site a common playground

A construction company was fined $35,000 after two boys were injured while playing in a house under construction.

On 6 September 2003 the company, Kingstone Constructions Pty Ltd was in the middle of constructing residential premises when two young boys, Jack Coulter and Hayden Vitols, decided to play at the site. The house had reached the ‘close up’ stage of building, where all brick work had been completed, the front door installed and roof tiles laid.

The two boys were playing with a hat on the site and were trying to fetch it back from some fibre cement sheeting sitting just above the front door of the house when the sheeting collapsed. Jack Coulter fell to the concrete floor below, fracturing a bone in his foot.

Though workers were aware that children sometimes played at the site, there was no perimeter fence preventing site access.

The accident was not reported to WorkCover until 11 September, when one of the boys' mothers, Mrs Coulter, called the authority. WorkCover issued the employer with an Improvement notice ordering the erection of a perimeter fence and site signage.

The director of the employer, Brian Willis, stated that he had arranged for perimeter fencing to be ordered, but the fencing wasn't delivered to the site until 9 September. Willis later issued a site fencing policy to members of each construction crew operated by the employer, to be put in place immediately. This policy ensured perimeter fences on all sites.

Willis received a personal fine of $5200 from Judge Staunton.

Formal report style

Inspector Kilpatrick v the Crown in Right of the State of New South Wales, Boland J of the Industrial Court of New South Wales. (17 May 2006) 

Employer responsible for swimming accident

The employer was the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. On 15 October 2002 the worker, Helen Taylor, was conducting an excursion with her class from the Newcastle Special School as part of her duties as a Teacher's Aide for the employer.

One of the students was 14-year-old LC, who was not a strong swimmer. As part of the excursion the students visited a swimming pool. During this visit, LC swam out to the deep end of the pool, which was two metres deep, and, when the worker came over to help, LC dragged the worker under water. The worker managed to work free of the student’s grasp and lead them both to shallow water.

The teacher on the excursion, Mr McDonald, observed the worker lying in shallow water in a stricken state. The worker was having difficulty keeping her head out of the water and there was blood coming from her forehead, nose and mouth. Mr McDonald called an ambulance, which took the worker to hospital where she died two weeks later after steadily deteriorating.

It was found that the worker had suffered from Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome, caused by near-drowning.

Before school commenced on the day of the incident, Mr McDonald had discussed with the worker the excursion that was to take place, and what it would involve. Mr McDonald had not been at work the previous day and the worker informed him that a decision had been made to allow the students to go swimming on the excursion. As Mr McDonald had not brought swimmers with him, the worker was to be in charge of swimming students.

Guidelines for schools in NSW rule that at least one swimming supervisor must possess a current Royal Life Saving Society of Australia bronze medallion or a Surf Life Saving Australia medallion or certificate. Mr McDonald was not aware of this requirement, and did not know whether the worker possessed any qualifications in swimming.

Mr McDonald had undertaken a visual risk assessment upon arrival at the pool. Observing that the water was calm and no members of the public were present, he had made the assessment that it was safe to continue the excursion. While the worker supervised the swimming students, Mr McDonald, organizing a barbeque lunch, had quickly visited the local shop for supplies. When he returned the accident had occurred.

In deciding the case, Boland J found that the risk to the worker’s health and safety was foreseeable and very serious. No assessment had been undertaken of the students’ swimming capabilities, and adequate safety measures had not been undertaken. There existed simple and straightforward remedial steps to ensure the worker’s safety. Taking this into consideration, Boland fined the employer $225,000.

Source: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Henson) v Kingstone Constructions Pty Ltd and Brian Willis (19 April 2006)