Mario Berra

Incident description:

On 22 May 2009 a 20 year old farm worker sustained serious injuries when a remotely operated tractor that she was trying to gain control of ran over her legs.

The court acknowledged Mario Berra failed in his obligation to ensure the system in place to remotely operate a tractor and trailer was safe.

The court found the defendant held obligations under s.28(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 being an employer.

The failure by the defendant occurred at the first step of the risk assessment process, by not identifying the hazard created by a design modification allowing operation of the tractor remotely from the trailer.

Investigation findings presented to the court revealed:

• the tractor was modified by the defendant in the early nineties to be operated remotely from a trailer towed during harvesting
• workers operated the tractor remotely as part of the defendant's business or undertaking
• the design provided no method to stop the tractor remotely apart from physically mounting the tractor while moving
• the worker tried to mount the tractor (veering off course at the time), slipped and inadvertently hit the gear lever and was subsequently run over
• whilst ingenuity to improve efficiencies should not be discouraged, such modifications should only be considered after a full risk assessment of all the potential hazards.

Court result:

The defendant pleaded guilty in the Townsville Industrial Magistrates Court on 27 April 2010 to breaching s.24(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, having failed to meet his workplace health and safety obligations and was sentenced with no conviction recorded.

Industrial Magistrate Mr Howard Osborne fined the defendant $8000 and ordered he pay investigation costs totalling $2963.70.

In reaching a decision the Industrial Magistrate acknowledged the defendant failed to identify the hazard created by the modification to the tractor.

In deciding the penalty, Industrial Magistrate Osborne took into account the defendant:

• had not been prosecuted previously for any workplace health and safety breach
• co-operated with the investigation
• partook in the rehabilitation of the worker
• showed genuine remorse and entered an early plea of guilty.

Industrial Magistrate Osborne acknowledged that at the time that the modifications were made to the tractor, there were no relevant codes of practices in place.

Considerations for prevention:

When working in the rural industry where there is exposure to risks from modifications made to mobile plant, obligation holders should apply a risk management approach to ensure the selection of suitable control measures.

Risk management involves evaluating the consequences and likelihood of harm that may result from the hazard, deciding on and implementing control measures to prevent or minimise the level of the risk from the hazard and monitoring the effectiveness of the control measures to ensure they remain working correctly.

When deciding on and implementing appropriate control measures associated with the risk of injury from modifications made to mobile plant, obligation holders should ensure :

• such tasks are supervised or undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced workers
• a risk assessment of the task has been completed, documented and evaluated
• manufacturer's instructions and intended use of such plant is followed
• approval is sought from the manufacturer for any design modification or an engineer's certification is obtained.

Visit the Workplace Health and Safety Queensland website for more information on:

• Health and safety information for the rural industry
• Modifying plant, machinery or equipment
• Tractor safety
• Rollover protective structures (ROPS)
• Managing risk
• Rural Plant Code of Practice 2004
• Plant Code of Practice 2005
• Risk Management Code of Practice 2007
• Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.