26.10.2012

Early Morning Shop leads to Health and Safety Nightmare

Many of us know that supermarket shopping with children can be a trying experience.  However, a trip to Lower Hutt Pak n’ Save became something of an early-morning nightmare for a father and his 10 year old son late last year.  The two were at the supermarket at opening time, 6am, and were going about their shopping when…

A well-meaning Pak n’ Save forklift operator noticed that a pallet on top of the shelving unit was overhanging the rack and thought it was unsafe.  Despite a store policy prohibiting the operation of forklifts during opening hours, the operator decided to remove the overhanging pallet, which was constituting a potential hazard.  In doing so, the operator put the forks of the forklift into the pallet.  The pallet contained 64 boxes, each containing 12 one-kilogram cartons of washing powder.  When the operator lifted the pallet to realign it, the bottom and side broke, sending boxes of washing powder down into the adjacent aisle.  Unfortunately, the boy was in the adjacent aisle and a number of those heavy boxes landed on him.  He sustained a broken leg as a result of the accident.

The supermarket was prosecuted under section 16 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HASIE).  The charge was that the company, being “a person who controlled a place of work, failed to take all practicable steps to ensure that no hazard that is or arises in the place harms people who are there to undertake activities that include…buying or selling goods from whose sale the person …derives any gain or reward”

It was noted that the store had a policy and practice of fencing off any aisle where a forklift/ reach truck was in operation.  However, there was no policy of fencing off the adjacent aisle.  Since the accident, such a policy has been implemented.

The company pleaded guilty to the charge, and paid voluntary reparations of $2,000 to the boy and his family.  The Court awarded a further $3,000 in reparations.  It then took a nominal starting point of $60,000 for the fine (payable to the Crown), discounted it by $20,000 to take account of mitigating factors (including the fact that the operator was acting to remove a hazard and inadvertently created a new one, procedures and codes of practice were in force, and the company had a good safety record), and discounted a further 25% for the early guilty plea.  The fine eventually reached was a relatively modest $30,000.

In our view

While HASIE is, as its name implies, chiefly focused on health and safety in employment, and many of the duties are imposed on employers to look after the safety of their employees, it is important to remember that it also applies to those in control of a place of work.  This can include the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, occupier, or person in possession of a place of work, or the plant within it.

The person in control of a place of work (whether that person is the employer or not) must take all practicable steps to ensure that no hazard harms people:

  • Who are in the vicinity of the place (including those who are there for recreation or leisure);
  • Who are lawfully at work in the place (including as customers, employees, contractors, sub-contractors or employees of contractors or subcontractors);
  • Who are there with the express or implied consent of the person in control of the workplace, and who have either:

-paid the person to be there; or
-are there to buy goods or inspect goods for sale

There are also duties to warn other people who may be in a workplace of any significant, unexpected, hazard that may arise from work being carried out there.

Health and safety in retail has not had the spotlight on it yet.  However, retail stores/areas are complex multiple hazard workplaces, often with high (and sometimes overstocked) shelves, electrical components, slipping hazards, falling objects and dangers posed by customers to themselves, to staff, and to other customers.  Eliminating and regulating these hazards will always need to be considered in the context of the particular workplace.  There is no “one size fits” all and company policy-makers need to be cognisant of that.

If you have any questions about whether you are a person in control of a place of work, and if so, your obligations to those who may be in the workplace or its vicinity, please give us a call on (09) 375 8699 to talk through your situation or email us at employmentnews@heskethhenry.co.nz.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

UK Supreme Court: Are collateral warranties considered construction contracts?
The UK Supreme Court recently released Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 determining that a collateral warranty used in the constr...
17.09.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
shutterstock
Bowen case part 2 – the ins and outs of the determination
In our last article, we wrote about what protected disclosures are and who can make them. In this article, we discuss the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determination, Bowen v Bank of New ...
13.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
Avoiding the Grey Area: Interpreting Trust Beneficiary Classes
Beneficiary classes in trust deeds should be clearly defined to ensure the assets of the trust benefit the people who the settlor(s) of the trust originally intended.   If they are not, then disputes...
05.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
vecteezy square wooden blocks lined up on a wooden workbench  Insurance Icons centered
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team author LexisNexis Practical Guidance Insurance
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team is delighted to celebrate the launch of Practical Guidance Insurance. LexisNexis has launched Practical Guidance Insurance containing 12 topics and over 50 sub-topics ...
03.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.