By Gaby Grammeno Contributor

The worker was employed as a forklift driver at a potato processing facility in South Australia. Pedestrians and forklifts were operating in close proximity, with eight forklifts making about 200 movements per hour.

The business had a traffic management plan, but it did not specifically address the risks of mobile plant colliding with pedestrians in the ‘specials’ area of its warehouse, where potatoes were washed for processing.

On 30 May 2022, the worker had stopped his forklift in the ‘specials’ area and dismounted to change his gloves, which were wet from changing a gas cylinder on another forklift outside in the rain.

He moved to the back of the forklift to get dry gloves to go on working, but at that moment another driver reversed into the space, colliding with him and pinning him between the two forklifts, causing multiple injuries to his pelvis, spine and internal organs.

Despite multiple surgeries, he was not expected to make a full recovery.

Following an investigation by SafeWork SA, the business was charged with a Category 2 safety offence under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012, and pleaded guilty. The maximum potential penalty was a fine of $1,500,000.

The case was heard in the South Australian Employment Tribunal.

 

In the Tribunal

Deputy President Stephen Lieschke heard that after the incident, the company promptly took action to remedy the gaps in its safety systems.

A designated safe stopping zone for forklift drivers was marked out, in recognition that they become vulnerable pedestrians as soon as they alight. An emergency safe stopping procedure of getting the attention of any other mobile plant operator in the vicinity before alighting was also established.

New rules stipulated that only one forklift at a time could enter the specials area, and that operators must turn their heads and look for three seconds before reversing.

The forklift speed limit was lowered from 10 kph to 5 kph, and new hazard controls were identified by a written hazard identification and risk assessment of forklift operations prepared by an employee.

Steps taken to separate forklifts from pedestrians included:

  • a visual warning of bollards and chain/tape was introduced to the specials area for use when forklifts collect assembled pallets
  • fixed railings and elevated pedestrian platforms were introduced to protect workers where forklifts were required to approach workstations
  • convex mirrors were installed at blind corners and fencing in some areas to prevent loads falling on workers in the event of forklift mishaps
  • drivers were required to alight on the left side only
  • layout changes were made to segregate tasks with little or no forklift use from areas of high forklift traffic
  • forklift operators were retrained in the new procedures
  • a visual warning – a blue-light that comes on for reversing – was fitted to all forklifts, and a red-light warning ‘curtain’ was being progressively fitted.

The company also established a Forklift Focus Group to regularly review the effectiveness of the new traffic management system, and introduced weekly documented toolbox talks on topics including forklift collisions.

In total, the business spent about $500,000 on improvements.

The Victim Impact statement tendered in court set out the devastating consequences of the incident. A young man who’d arrived in Australia as a refugee in 2012, he’d worked hard for 10 years but remained on a bridging visa with no entitlement to Medicare or social security.

The accident had transformed his previously active and satisfying life into a ‘despairing existence’ in which he was always in terrible pain, depressed, isolated and unable to work. Internal injuries which he said were ‘too hard to talk about’ had had a very negative effect on his daily life, and he’d attempted suicide several times.

He’d received workers compensation and support for medical treatment, and the expenses paid by the Return to Work Corporation for the consequences of the employer’s offence were over $420,000 up until the sentencing hearing.

The employer admitted its safety systems were not adequate to prevent the accident, and provided a high level of personal support to the worker during his hospitalisation and afterwards.

Deputy President Lieschke considered that before the incident, ‘safety measures to control the known hazard of dangerous forklift collisions were primarily weak administrative policies, that relied on individual busy workers and were seldom enforced in practice’.

Its failure to properly identify, assess and control all the known and foreseeable hazards of forklifts colliding with people resulted in unsafe traffic management in the specials area. The business had seriously failed to ensure the safety of its employees so far as reasonably practicable.

‘Any PCBU that daily uses eight forklifts around pedestrians in one facility, and which does not conduct a [Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment] or access expert traffic management safety advice, is plainly risking sub-optimal hazard controls and resulting serious injuries,’ he said.

Though the employer had missed previous opportunities to improve their forklift safety systems, the company’s acceptance of responsibility, demonstrated contrition, full cooperation with the regulator and its guilty plea entitled it to a 40% reduction to the appropriate penalty of $300,000.

The court imposed a fine of $180,000 plus a contribution to the prosecutor’s legal costs.

 

What it means for employers

For employers with mobile plant around people on foot, good intentions and a traffic management plan may not be enough. Gaps in the plan – particular risks not identified, rules not detailed enough, lack of effective training, inadequate supervision and enforcement – can add up to poor management and mega costs for the business, as well as a life wrecked by injury. Depending on the circumstances, it may be advisable to seek professional traffic management advice.

 

Read the decision

Farrell v Mitolo Group Pty Ltd [2025] SAET 26 (21 March 2025)