Slipping standards: the duty of a reasonably prudent employer

[Newshound]

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia demonstrates the care needed in determining liability in slip and trip cases.

In Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v- Wieland [2014] WASCA 41, Wieland worked for Transfield as a senior chef in a kitchen at the naval base at Garden Island, Western Australia. On the day in question, he was returning to the galley after visiting the toilet and slipped on the top step of four steps leading back to the galley. It was subsequently found as a matter of fact that the rubber strip on the top step was beginning to come loose.

Read more...

[RobWatson]

The finding was just in terms of " reasonable duty of care" being properly exercised by the employer. What is missing is whether handrails were available on the sides of the steps, since the narrative describes 4 steps. The minimum used by design engineers is three or less for the omission of handrails for grasping. Suffice it to say, that once the hazardous condition is identified, the employer has the responsibility to mitigate the hazard and prevent a recurrence and shall incorporate the details into future weekly inspection criteria. (If it were me, I would recommend permanent attachment methods (countersunk screws) of butyl rubber strips affixed to steps instead of an adhesive-backed tape.)