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

Deciding to Wind Up? Observations on winding-up a trust from a recent High Court case
A trust can be a hassle and expensive to maintain.  So, it is not unusual for clients to reflect on whether a trust should be maintained. When settlors, Bert and Diana Queenin, decided to wind up the...
24.03.2025 Posted in Private Wealth
Mediation wide BW
Employment Law’s Dispute Resolution Process – Mediation
Navigating the dispute resolution process in the employment jurisdiction can be tricky. This article aims to spell out the key considerations for those involved in or contemplating mediation, which is...
24.03.2025 Posted in Employment
empty wallet finance concept
Amendment to the Crimes Act 1961: Intentionally not paying employees their wages now deemed theft
An amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 (Crimes Act) – the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill has been passed by Parliament and received Royal assent. It is now an enforceable provision of th...
14.03.2025 Posted in Employment
Time’s Up: Late Redelivery and the Assessment of Damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company
The English Commercial Court gave an instructive judgment on the assessment of damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company; an appeal brou...
11.03.2025 Posted in Trade and Transport
Team Hands in small
Cartel conduct: Do not pass “GO”, go directly to jail
Until 8 April 2021, cartel conduct was punishable only by civil penalty in New Zealand.  In R v Kumar [2024] NZHC 3955 the High Court imposed the first criminal convictions and sentences for cartel c...
06.03.2025 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Employment
2025 Insights: Proposed Legislative Changes and Employment Team Update
Team update and proposed legislative change – hello from the Hesketh Henry Employment Law Team 2025. Click here
20.02.2025
photo  dbe
When Sweet Turns Sour: The Costly Consequences of Contamination
The New Zealand Sugar Company (NZSC), trading as Chelsea Sugar, recently found itself in hot water after being fined nearly $149,500 by the District Court due to a prosecution brought by the Ministry ...
19.02.2025 Posted in Insurance & Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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