http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10383418
Thursday May 25, 2006
By Claire Trevett
A farming couple have been ordered to pay a total of $20,000 after failing to properly train or ensure the safety of a farmhand whose face was slashed by a chainsaw, narrowly missing his eye.
David and Marilyn Gray, dairy farmers from Kaukapakapa, north of Auckland, were fined $4000 and ordered to pay $16,000 in reparation to the 18-year-old farmhand, who was injured last September.
His forehead, eyebrow and eyelid were lacerated after a chainsaw he was using to build a retaining wall on the farm kicked back, hitting him in the face.
The fine and reparation were ordered after the Grays were convicted this week of two charges each under the Health and Safety in Employment Act of failing to ensure the safety of the farmhand and failing to adequately train him for the work required.
The Department of Labour said the farmhand was not given any protective clothing or equipment, and was not suitably trained for the job or properly supervised.
The farmhand had only used a chainsaw once before and the chainsaw had no chain brake system to stop it if it kicked back.
Department of Labour health and safety chief adviser Mike Cosman said the combination of "shonky equipment", and an inexperienced operator with no protective gear was a recipe for disaster.
"When something goes wrong with a chainsaw, the results aren't pretty. In this case, the victim was lucky not to have been killed or lose an eye."
He said young workers and those new to a job needed more training and supervision because they were not as aware of the risks as experienced workers.
"It's a huge risk to put a chainsaw in the hands of someone who has hardly ever used one before and expect them to use it skilfully and safely."
Mr Gray said he did not wish to make any comment on the case.
ACC said it spent more than $2 million a year on claims for injuries caused by chainsaws and the majority were for DIY users at home.
Grant Nicholson, senior associate and head of health and safety practice at Kensington Swan, said the farmers got off lightly, compared to other fines and reparations orders handed out.
"I would have thought $4000 was not a significant fine when dealing with a facial disfigurement," he said.
"It is a big disparity to have only $4000 in fines and $16,000 in reparations because reparations are not intended to be for physical harm. They may cover emotional distress or time off work, but ACC is there to cover the physical harm, not reparations."
Mr Nicholson said if the farmers were properly insured, their insurance would pay for the reparations, but not the fine because the legislation blocked insuring against fines.
Between 2002 and 2005, the amount of total reparations in health and safety prosecutions increased by more than 800 per cent.
However, the average fine (about $6200) had increased only slightly since Parliament increased fines under the act in 2003 from a $50,000 maximum to $250,000 for most offences.
The biggest order ever given under the act was in June 2005, when fishing company Sealord was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay $195,000 to the family of Dovedale man Hugh Hope, who died after spending more than 18 hours trapped in the blades of a fishmeal cooking machine on board the Aoraki in September 2004.
Thursday May 25, 2006
By Claire Trevett
A farming couple have been ordered to pay a total of $20,000 after failing to properly train or ensure the safety of a farmhand whose face was slashed by a chainsaw, narrowly missing his eye.
David and Marilyn Gray, dairy farmers from Kaukapakapa, north of Auckland, were fined $4000 and ordered to pay $16,000 in reparation to the 18-year-old farmhand, who was injured last September.
His forehead, eyebrow and eyelid were lacerated after a chainsaw he was using to build a retaining wall on the farm kicked back, hitting him in the face.
The fine and reparation were ordered after the Grays were convicted this week of two charges each under the Health and Safety in Employment Act of failing to ensure the safety of the farmhand and failing to adequately train him for the work required.
The Department of Labour said the farmhand was not given any protective clothing or equipment, and was not suitably trained for the job or properly supervised.
The farmhand had only used a chainsaw once before and the chainsaw had no chain brake system to stop it if it kicked back.
Department of Labour health and safety chief adviser Mike Cosman said the combination of "shonky equipment", and an inexperienced operator with no protective gear was a recipe for disaster.
"When something goes wrong with a chainsaw, the results aren't pretty. In this case, the victim was lucky not to have been killed or lose an eye."
He said young workers and those new to a job needed more training and supervision because they were not as aware of the risks as experienced workers.
"It's a huge risk to put a chainsaw in the hands of someone who has hardly ever used one before and expect them to use it skilfully and safely."
Mr Gray said he did not wish to make any comment on the case.
ACC said it spent more than $2 million a year on claims for injuries caused by chainsaws and the majority were for DIY users at home.
Grant Nicholson, senior associate and head of health and safety practice at Kensington Swan, said the farmers got off lightly, compared to other fines and reparations orders handed out.
"I would have thought $4000 was not a significant fine when dealing with a facial disfigurement," he said.
"It is a big disparity to have only $4000 in fines and $16,000 in reparations because reparations are not intended to be for physical harm. They may cover emotional distress or time off work, but ACC is there to cover the physical harm, not reparations."
Mr Nicholson said if the farmers were properly insured, their insurance would pay for the reparations, but not the fine because the legislation blocked insuring against fines.
Between 2002 and 2005, the amount of total reparations in health and safety prosecutions increased by more than 800 per cent.
However, the average fine (about $6200) had increased only slightly since Parliament increased fines under the act in 2003 from a $50,000 maximum to $250,000 for most offences.
The biggest order ever given under the act was in June 2005, when fishing company Sealord was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay $195,000 to the family of Dovedale man Hugh Hope, who died after spending more than 18 hours trapped in the blades of a fishmeal cooking machine on board the Aoraki in September 2004.
