A demolition company engaged a contractor to install a gate. The contracted gate company installed a faulty gate. The faulty gate fell on a passerby. The gate had been used without incident or any issues coming to the attention of the demolition company in the 2 months prior to the incident.
The demolition company pleaded guilty to
1 – failing to inspect the gate after it was constructed – Why would they? they don’t construct gates and it appeared ok to everyone who used it for 2 months post its construction.
2 – conducting a risk assessment on the gate to ensure it didn’t pose a risk to the public – See comments above
3 – arranging for a competent person to provide a fit the gate – Uh I think that was the gate installer
4 – arranging for a competent person to instal a stopper to prevent the gate overrunning and falling – See comments above
5 – erecting hoarding with an inward opening gate- since when does the Regulator prescribe gate types.
6 – installing an inward opening gate – See comments above.
7 – Taking the gate out of service unless an end stop was installed – the lack of an end stopper was only apparent to the demolition company after the incident.
8 – Prohibiting the use of the gate until an end stop was installed – see comments above
9 – placing signage on the gate to warn that it might fall – there was nothing to indicate it might fall before the incident. Do we just put signs on every gate now….
10 – preparing a SWMS – let’s not go there.
The prosecutor agreed the Demolition Company was not aware of the flaw and no such flaw was apparent in the time it had been in use. They also agreed that it had been inadequately designed and installed by the contractor
In summary, the demolition company that had engaged an apparently competent contractor to install the gate was supposed to conduct a technical inspection of the gate after it was completed to make sure it was safe. Yes, regular inspections should be conducted during the gate’s lifetime. However inspecting within 2 months of installation, when there was no indication that it was unsafe????
Sadly, the defendant pleaded guilty, so NSW WorkSafe did not have to prove any of its charges.
Sue