Keywords: Qeensland District Court, workplace injury, employer liability, bandsaw injury, Workers’ Compensation, negligence, reasonable care, workplace safety, risk assessment, BladeStop, Greenmountain Food Processing, Lowe v Greenmountain
By Honest Grace Legal | Motor Vehicle Injury Law | May 2025
Subject
Meatworker’s Injury Claim Rejected: No Proved Negligence Over Bandsaw Incident
What Happened
In 2019, Ritchie Lowe, then a 23-year-old meatworker at Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd in Queensland, suffered a partial amputation to his right index finger while using a bandsaw. The injury occurred as he was cutting a smaller-than-usual veal rib rack that slipped in his grip, causing his finger to make contact with the moving blade.
Despite recovering well - returning to physical activity including playing high-level rugby league - Lowe brought a personal injury claim against his former employer. He alleged that inadequate training, unsafe equipment, and poor supervision were responsible for his injury.
Key Legal Issues
- Did the employer breach its duty of care by failing to provide a safe work environment, adequate training, or safer equipment?
- Was the injury caused by a failure to assess specific risks related to smaller or slippery meat portions?
- Was Lowe entitled to common law damages under Queensland’s Workers’ Compensation laws?
What the Court Decided
Judge Horneman-Wren SC dismissed Lowe’s claim. The court found that:
- The employer had fulfilled its duty of care by providing general training and conducting risk assessments.
- The risks Lowe faced were known and inherent in the task and had been reasonably addressed.
- Lowe failed to prove that the specific piece of meat posed unique risks that required different handling or training.
- There was no credible evidence to support the claim that lack of BladeStop technology or push tools would have prevented the injury.
- Lowe’s own account showed no actual concern at the time of the incident, undermining arguments about unaddressed safety fears.
Key Findings
- Credibility issues: Lowe’s testimony was inconsistent. He claimed concern about meat size/slipperiness in submissions but gave no such evidence during the trial.
- Training adequate: The court accepted that Lowe had been trained appropriately for the task, and that deviation from his training contributed to the injury.
- No exceptional risk: The meat cut was not proven to be unusually small or slippery beyond what was reasonably expected in the job.
- Alternative technologies: BladeStop machines might reduce injury severity, but there was no proof Lowe’s injuries would have been avoided had such a saw been used.
- Inadequate evidence for damages: Claims for significant economic loss were rejected as Lowe had resumed well-paid work and rugby, showing no significant long-term impact on capacity.
Outcome
- Employer cleared of negligence.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a key example of how not all workplace injuries equate to employer liability, even when the injury is serious. It clarifies that:
- Employers aren’t strictly liable for inherently risky tasks if reasonable safety measures are in place.
- Plaintiffs must align their pleadings, evidence, and submissions - discrepancies can be fatal to their case.
- Courts will assess risk and foreseeability in context - equipment design and cost limitations matter.
- Importantly, BladeStop technology, while desirable, isn’t mandated under law if standard safety measures are already met.
For workers, the case is a reminder of the importance of raising safety concerns promptly and following training protocols. For employers, it reinforces the value of detailed risk assessments and training documentation to defend against liability claims.
Source
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QDC24-204.pdf