Failing was never this expensive at school   

Kennedy v Queensland Alumina Limited [2015] QSC 317     (18 November 2015) 

In awarding the man $190,000, the Queensland Supreme Court found his failure to follow his training and instructions was a "substantial" departure "from the standards expected of a reasonable worker".  As a result of his failure. The court halved the injured worker's damages award after finding he failed to isolate a pipe before sustaining foot burns and PTSD.  The worker had been trained "not to trust a valve" and to "'prove isolation' before breaking open the pipework". 

In January 2012, the Queensland Alumina Ltd worker was opening a pipe that conveyed caustic solution from an overhead tank when the chemical shot out from the pipe and burned his left heel and ankle. 

He claimed damages, and told the Court he inadvertently opened a pump suction valve (instead of closing it) before opening the pipe because the label on the valve's hex nut was covered by a build-up of scale. 

He argued the employer breached its duty of care in allowing him to perform tasks in circumstances where it was difficult to tell if the valve was opened or closed, failing to instruct him how to perform the task, and failing to conduct a risk assessment or inspect plant. 

The employer admitted liability, but argued the worker was contributorily negligent in failing to ensure the pipe was effectively isolated from the overhead tank. 

It claimed the worker should have "proven isolation" by using a probe to disturb any blockages in the pipe that might have made it seem like it was isolated when it wasn't. 

Justice Duncan McMeekin found the experienced worker would have been "thoroughly familiar" with isolation and tag-out procedures, and his failure to prove isolation was one of the "fundamental reasons" the incident occurred. 

"In the instant case he did trust a valve – the pump suction valve that he accidentally opened instead of closing as he intended. And in my view he did not prove isolation or attempt to do so. 

"Why he departed from the procedures that he had, I am sure, repeatedly observed and been taught is now unknown. It may be that he took a short cut. It may be that he simply did not think it through." 

Justice McMeekin said the second fundamental reason the incident occurred was because a combination of poor lighting and scale build-up obscured the "O" and "C" (open and closed) symbols on the hex nut on the pump suction valve. 

"All this should have been foreseen by the employer and the risk of a mistake being made removed," he said. 

"It is difficult to see why the hex nut could not have been marked with say, yellow painted lines such that they ran horizontal when closed and vertical when open, and the workers instructed accordingly." 

Justice McMeekin found the worker was entitled to $486,613 in past and future economic loss and other damages, but reduced this by 50 per cent for his contributory negligence, and a further $52,244 for previous WorkCover payments, resulting in an award of $191,061.