Andrew Douglas: Is it time to go onto the main topic?

Monnette Sam0: I think so.

Andrew Douglas:  Well, let’s go onto the main topic then. The main topic is about looking at complex circumstances where a number of different organisations have responsibility, and someone is harmed. And we saw the case of Kilvington Grammar not that long ago where a school had an overseas tour, there was a tour operator, a child had problems, and everybody was held liable, and everyone said, “That’s just outrageous.” They said it was outrageous ’cause they didn’t realise it’s actually what the law is. Look at the… Justice Kaye and the Victorian Supreme Court was recently dealing with a West Gate tunnel cave issue where there was a labour hire company involved, there was a joint venture who took on the labour hire employee. They’re working alongside a qualified carpenter. So we’ve got everybody involved, okay?

Monnette Sam0:Yeah.

Andrew Douglas:  And somebody had their finger amputated, all right? And at the end of the day, there was an assessment of damages that was done. And unlike safety law, in safety law, everyone has 100% liability. When you look at the common law, what it does, it says there is a pot of 100%, and we will apportion liability based on your involvement, engagement, and held the employee was 10% liable for the nature of the risks they took, and then spread 90% across the field. If this was a safety case, the employee would not have had any 10% liability. Each one of those employers, because of their failure to guard against the machine, everyone failed to have policies, procedures, processes, training, everything in relation to the use of a circular saw.

Monnette Sam0: Yeah.

Andrew Douglas:  Unbelievable, okay, unbelievable. Because this was a… We’re talking about very big players, this is joint venture with John Holland. These are big players.

Monnette Sam0: Big players.

Andrew Douglas:  Who failed to say, and teach, and train, and invigilate how circular saws are used. Had this been a safety prosecution, it would’ve been a serious primary duties breach without a doubt, okay? It’s not, it’s a common law claim. But what I want you to understand is both jurisdictions apply, okay? But in one jurisdiction, safety law, it’s not 100% divide up. Each person sits within that 100%. As each person has 100% risk, they start with. So I thought let’s talk about… We’ve talked about that briefly. It’s not much the turns on, it just shows that everybody is liable because the responsibility of a site sits with the principal contractor, who then must be satisfied. The person who enters the site to do work has the relevant policies, procedures, process, and competency. It also says if you bring a labour hire person, they’ve got to be inducted into the site to know that what they’re doing and who they’re with, they’re safe. So everybody has liability in safety law. But we thought we might put together a case study, which reveals how complex that actually gets and how serious it gets based on individual knowledge. So you ready to read?

Monnette Sam0: Let’s read.

Andrew Douglas:  I’m doing it this… There you go.

Monnette Sam0: All right, so Jim worked for Solid Concreters, a formwork company operating at Big Buildings Ltd. in a CBD site. He was involved in erecting vertical columns between floors on the multi-story building. BB was a principal contractor. He engaged Keeping on Cranes to undertake the lifting operations, and KOC operated three large cranes at all time.

Andrew Douglas:  So Big Build is BB, I should say. Keeping on Cranes is KOC. Just so we… It’s me who does all this and makes it impossible for anyone to understand. I’m going to talk about Loose Labour shortly and they’re LL, so off you go.

Monnette Sam0: All right, so KOC engaged Loose Labour, LL, to provide casual labour to assist with its operations. Dogmen were in short supply and LL had several available, Jim…

Andrew Douglas:  Jim was arranging a pour to some vertical mouldings and required assistance of KOC. The assistance was arranged through BB, over to you again.

Monnette Sam0: So Jim struggled with poorly skilled dogmen from KOC, who directed the concrete bucket during pours in a dangerous manner. On two occasions, they knocked over formwork, and once they caused a quantity of concrete to spill next to his workers. He complained to both Terry, the Director of Operations at BB, and Dino, the owner of KOC.

Andrew Douglas:  Can I just say, Terry’s my dog, and Dino runs the garage I go to, I just thought we’d that thing.

Monnette Sam0: Oh goodness.

Andrew Douglas:  Yeah, no. Sometimes, you know.

Monnette Sam0: You run out of names.

Andrew Douglas:  That fiction follows fact, doesn’t it really?

Monnette Sam0: So a safety investigation… Where are we up to? A safety investigation…

Andrew Douglas:  Revealed two of the dogmen used by KOC.

Monnette Sam0: KOC.

Andrew Douglas:  Were employees of LL, and neither held a current licence.

Monnette Sam0: So both Terry and Dino spoke to Mavis, the Co-Director at LL with her husband, Ivan, and said it must never happen again. No further action was taken. On 16 September 2025, KOC was lifting a bucket on the 24th floor when the wind caught it, swinging the bucket wildly across the roof and pinning Jim to the wall. The crush injuries caused his immediate death. The dogman had not advised the crane operator of the wind risk, had lowered the bucket too close to the floor, and had not attached a rope to prevent swinging. The dogman was unlicensed and had little experience.

Andrew Douglas:  All right, there you go, not an easy case study because there’s lots of people, but the answer in this is question one is were there any safety breaches? And the answer is if we just go through it, Big Build, was there safety breaches? Yes, they had to be satisfied that the crane lifting the concrete bucket, which as you pump into a bucket and lift it, was managed in an appropriate manner. They were advised that it hadn’t been occurring and all they did is say don’t do it again. So they’re in strife, okay? If we look at… Who’s the next character we’re looking at? We are looking at…

Monnette Sam0: We’ve got Jim and KOC.

Andrew Douglas:  Well he’s dead, Jim, so he doesn’t have any liabilities.

Monnette Sam0: KOC.

Andrew Douglas:  KOC, the crane operator. KOC’s director was Terry, wasn’t it? Am I right about that? Yeah, I think Terry-

Monnette Sam0: I’m starting to lose track.

Andrew Douglas:  Yeah, you’re losing track, and that’s the problem in this case case study. So Terry was aware of the fact that unlicensed dogmen were being provided by LL. And he was told squarely it was not to happen again. And he also understood the risk, the very risk that eventuated with Jim’s death. So Terry is definitely on liability, he’s in breach of his personal obligation, and that is to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to another. He’s in breach of his due diligence obligation. Every state and territory in Victoria, he had knowledge, and every other state, he ought to had knowledge of the nature of the risk, and failed to do anything about it.

So Terry’s in the strife. His business, KOC, they’re definitely in trouble. But the difficulty here is for both of them. In safety law, organisational liabilities based on attribution. So Terry had a knowledge, therefore, KOC had a knowledge, okay? And their knowledge was there was a risk of serious injury if unlicensed dogmen did the wrong things in the manner in which they did before. And it happened again. So that’s reckless endangerment. There’s a level of indifference. They had to do something. They had to check that they were licenced, had the relevant experience before they allowed them on site. And for LL and for Mavis and her husband, they’re squarely in the gun. Once again, they’re officers.

So they have officer liability, personal liability, and they have corporate liability. The difficulty for them is they’ve stepped up a grade because what they did was not only a breach of duty, it was so grossly negligent, given the knowledge at risk. They’re facing workplace manslaughter, industrial manslaughter. So interesting set of facts. I know we’re, you know, we’re joking about how complex it is, but what I wanted to show you is there is this descending order of where liability falls. Now, at common law, they would all be liable again, okay? Except LL would be extraordinarily high liability, KOC next, BB, a little bit. But in sentencing terms, given the nature and the size of BB, in safety law, they would have extraordinarily high liability in sentencing because safety law looks to the nature and sophistication of the duty holder. So BB are in real strife, but someone would go to jail for this.

Monnette Sam0: Okay.

Andrew Douglas:  Whether it’s under reckless endangerment or whether it’s under industrial manslaughter, I think that Terry and Mavis are at real risk. So there you go. Now, we go… If so, whom would be charged? We’ve done all that. We’ve done everything because we’re so good today. And what I’d like to do is thank Thuy, who’s the producer of this for tolerating us, mucking it up so often. And can I say, it wasn’t you who marked it up, it was me. So we look forward to seeing you next week. So look, thanks for following. Give us a thumbs up, and just tolerate us just for one more week. We’ll see you next week, cheers, bye-bye.

Monnette Sam0: Bye.