Prosecution Details

[1] Being a person who supplied plant, namely a material hoist, for use at a workplace, by way of hire failed to ensure that the plant was inspected between periods of hire so as to reduce, as far as was practicable, any risk of injury or harm occurring to persons properly installing, erecting, commissioning or using the plant at the workplace.

[2] Being a person who supplied plant, namely a material hoist, for use at a workplace, by way of hire failed to ensure that an assessment was done to determine whether the plant required testing, in order to check whether new or increased risks of injury or harm occurring to persons properly installing, erecting, commissioning or using the plant at the workplace had developed and to determine the frequency of any required testing.

The defendant operated a hire business. A material hoist was hired to a builder and was delivered and erected at a construction site where a double storey residence was under construction.

On 24 July 2001 a roof tiler working at the site went to get a 20 litre bucket of cement from the material hoist, which was elevated 4.5 to 5 metres above the ground level with the scaffolding on the upper storey of the house. Two or three nearly full 20 litre buckets of cement were on the hoist. The roof tiler stepped from the scaffold onto the hoist and lent over the pick up a bucket when the hoist platform free to the ground with the roof tiler on it. He was still standing when it hit the ground and his knees buckled and he fell forward onto his hands. The roof tiler sustained a broken bone in his left foot, injury to his right foot and abrasions and bruising to his lower back.

Defects found in both the manner in which the hoist wire rope was fitted and the condition of the safety equipment were defects that a proper inspection of the hoist would have revealed. Although, the hoist was inspected by an employee of the defendant prior to it being hired to the builder, he did not have suffricient expertise to identify the defects in the hoist. The defendant had no records in respect of inspection of the hoist.

The defendant pleaded guilty.

The matter was heard by Mr Roberts SM. His Worship noted that people who take goods on hire have a reasonable expectation that they are safe. His Worship took account of the accident that occurred, the near tragic consequences and the potential for more serious injury. However, in mitigation his Worship had regard to the defendant's plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, lack of prior convictions and its remorse demonstrated by the changes it has put in place since the accident.