Keeping a handle on workplace practices is rarely on top of the priority list for owners and managers of small and medium-sized companies – there are too many other core tasks to stay on top of in the day-to-day running of the business. Managers at larger companies have the luxury of hiring a staffer to babysit the issue of workplace safety and practices for them.
Unfortunately, when an accident happens the company runs into it like a sunker everybody knew was there, but that nobody was keeping an eye on.
Slackness might cost you
In my pre-law life I spent a lot of time around heavy equipment. And every time I got out of a machine I took the pressure off the hydraulics – leaving a boom or a bucket needlessly hanging in the air always just seemed sloppy and unnecessarily hard on the gear.
Personal preferences notwithstanding, lowering hydraulic booms on parked machinery is also considered safe practice. A recent case from the BC Supreme Court – Slocan Forest Products Ltd. v. Trapper Enterprises Ltd., 2009 BCSC 1175 – is a great example of how much carelessness can cost. (Gary Oakes also commented on this case in the September 18, 2009 issue of The Lawyers Weekly).
In abbreviation, the relevant facts here are:
Slocan was a forestry company and owned logging camps
Trapper had a service contract with Slocan for general maintenance and operations of one of their camps
Slocan hired a second company to do some renovations on the camp while the camp was vacant during the spring
Trapper helped that company by, among other things, carrying away debris
On the day in question a Trapper employee was using a front-end loader to collect debris by moving close to a building being worked on and positioning the bucket so the other company’s workers could toss debris into the bucket
Near the end of the day the Trapper employee knocked off around 5:00 but left the loader parked with the bucket elevated for the other workers to continue working.
Those workers never stayed long either and also quit earlier than they often did (possibly to catch a hockey game – I don’t make this up it’s in the decision)
The loader bucket was left suspended over a “Christmas tree” (a splitter assembly for the camp’s propane system)
The propane was supplied by a nearby tank farm with 9000 US gallon capacity
At about 2:20 am the camp was flattened by a massive explosion
After causation analysis it was found as fact that the critical event was the probable loss of hydraulic pressure in the loader’s rams, which caused the bucket to lower onto the Christmas tree, damaging it and creating a gas leak
Slocan’s damages were assessed against Trapper at $1,750,000 plus another $483,850 that was agreed between the parties
So, to recap, because the employee left his machine parked with the bucket elevated the employer was on the hook for over two million dollars. There’s nothing really ground-breaking about the law applied in this case; the analysis is straightforward negligence and employer vicarious liability. Again, what the case illustrates very well is how a little sloppiness can result in a big bill.
A little might go a long way
So, while business owners and managers are often pressed with the business of core tasks, it makes a lot of sense to take meaningful steps to eliminate sloppy workplace practices (so, doing more than just filling out ‘toolbox meeting’ paperwork to satisfy the government safety inspectors). By doing so they can reduce the possibility of exposure to potentially onerous liabilities. Unless, of course, they’ve got a few million to burn.
Nota Bene
A final thought: one way to reduce possible liability as a result of workplace accidents is to encourage safe work habits in existing personnel. But, the adage about teaching old dogs new tricks is one to bear in mind. An employee who is characteristically careless might be a liability – period – no matter how many safety meetings he or she attends. An alternative to attempting to ‘teach’ safety is to keep it in mind at the hiring stage, and make it a consideration before making a hiring decision. That is, just hire people who, as a far as ascertainable by way of past behaviour and personal judgment, are on the ball and not prone to sloppy or careless habits.
Try looking at their boots – are they laced up? Because if they don’t have the energy for that they might not have the energy to park that machine properly either.
Put the bucket down
Keeping a handle on workplace practices is rarely on top of the priority list for owners and managers of small and medium-sized companies – there are too many other core tasks to stay on top of in the day-to-day running of the business. Managers at larger companies have the luxury of hiring a staffer to babysit the issue of workplace safety and practices for them.
Unfortunately, when an accident happens the company runs into it like a sunker everybody knew was there, but that nobody was keeping an eye on.
Slackness might cost you
In my pre-law life I spent a lot of time around heavy equipment. And every time I got out of a machine I took the pressure off the hydraulics – leaving a boom or a bucket needlessly hanging in the air always just seemed sloppy and unnecessarily hard on the gear.
Personal preferences notwithstanding, lowering hydraulic booms on parked machinery is also considered safe practice. A recent case from the BC Supreme Court – Slocan Forest Products Ltd. v. Trapper Enterprises Ltd., 2009 BCSC 1175 – is a great example of how much carelessness can cost. (Gary Oakes also commented on this case in the September 18, 2009 issue of The Lawyers Weekly).
In abbreviation, the relevant facts here are:
So, to recap, because the employee left his machine parked with the bucket elevated the employer was on the hook for over two million dollars. There’s nothing really ground-breaking about the law applied in this case; the analysis is straightforward negligence and employer vicarious liability. Again, what the case illustrates very well is how a little sloppiness can result in a big bill.
A little might go a long way
So, while business owners and managers are often pressed with the business of core tasks, it makes a lot of sense to take meaningful steps to eliminate sloppy workplace practices (so, doing more than just filling out ‘toolbox meeting’ paperwork to satisfy the government safety inspectors). By doing so they can reduce the possibility of exposure to potentially onerous liabilities. Unless, of course, they’ve got a few million to burn.
Nota Bene
A final thought: one way to reduce possible liability as a result of workplace accidents is to encourage safe work habits in existing personnel. But, the adage about teaching old dogs new tricks is one to bear in mind. An employee who is characteristically careless might be a liability – period – no matter how many safety meetings he or she attends. An alternative to attempting to ‘teach’ safety is to keep it in mind at the hiring stage, and make it a consideration before making a hiring decision. That is, just hire people who, as a far as ascertainable by way of past behaviour and personal judgment, are on the ball and not prone to sloppy or careless habits.
Try looking at their boots – are they laced up? Because if they don’t have the energy for that they might not have the energy to park that machine properly either.