Latest news with #forestryworker
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Contractor fined $70k for safety breach after forestry worker loses fingers
By Shannon Pitman, Open Justice reporter of The hauler involved in the incident which left a forestry worker seriously injured. Photo / Worksafe Photo: Supplied / Worksafe A seasoned forestry worker lost four fingers in a workplace accident, which ended a 45-year career that was marked by pride, satisfaction and no intention to retire. Now, Kohurau Contracting has been ordered to pay $150,000 and must publish an educational article about the dangers of untangling cable snarls in forestry operations. In August 2021, the worker - who has name suppression - was at a forestry site near Waipu, south of Whangārei, helping clear a cable that had not been wound correctly on to the drum. The experienced crew were packing up to relocate to another location but the tail line had over-spooled on to the drum, creating a "bird's nest" similar to which can occur on a fishing reel. At least 1200m of cable had to be pulled out in order to clear the bird's nest. The victim was guiding the rope back on to the drum using a hammer while seated beneath the tower. Another worker was operating a grapple loader to keep the cable elevated. During the operation, the stabiliser ram supporting the tower fractured, and a broken section - known as the spear - fell on to the victim, seriously injuring him. As a result, the victim was hospitalised for six weeks and had to have four fingers amputated. Kohurau was charged by WorkSafe for failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers and pleaded not guilty. A five-day judge-alone trial was held in the Dargaville District Court in November 2024, where several witnesses gave evidence including the victim and industry experts. WorkSafe's mechanical engineer, John Mains, stated that winching without guy ropes was unacceptable and the accident would not have occurred had the tower been properly secured. Kohurau's expert argued that guy ropes were unnecessary for the task and the force involved was minimal - claims Judge Peter Davey found inconsistent. The court also heard that Kohurau lacked a specific safe system for clearing birds' nests and relied heavily on the experience of its crew. Judge Davey concluded Kohurau breached its duties under the Health and Safety Act and found the company guilty of exposing workers to serious risk. This week at the Whangārei District Court the company was sentenced in the presence of its owner, Hamish John Owen. Kohurau's lawyer Daniel Robinson argued the company was insolvent and had suffered a loss of $1.3 million because of the accident. "Where do you get that from?" Judge Davey questioned before noting the company still had assets of around $400,000 and $250,000 in its bank account. Judge Davey did not accept the losses were from the accident and stated the company had been downsizing prior to the accident. Judge Davey repeatedly expressed his concern around whether reparation would be paid, to which Robinson assured him any amount ordered would be met. "My instructions sir, is we will be able to be pay but that is limited to the reparation order," Robinson responded. Robinson also submitted the absence of any industry guidelines for winding cables was a mitigating factor that should be applied to the companies' overall sentence. Judge Davey noted the significant impact the accident had on the victim. "He hasn't been able to return to work, he enjoyed the work, he had no plans of retiring," Judge Davey said. "He clearly took great pride in his work, took great satisfaction in his work and he was good at his job. "Despite what's happened to him, he nevertheless tries to stay positive." Judge Davey said the price of an emotional harm reparation order was an intuitive exercise and there was no way to put a figure on the suffering caused. "No amount of money can compensate the emotional harm that he has suffered." Judge Davey said Kohurau should have had a process in place to clear birds' nests and there was "a real risk he could have been killed". Kohurau, which has already paid the victim $10,000, was ordered to pay him a further $50,000. The company was also fined $70,000 and ordered to pay legal costs of $30,000. The court also issued a project order with two key commitments to be completed within 12 months. Kohurau must work in collaboration with the Forestry Industry Safety Council (FISC) and Forestry Industry Contractors Association (FICA) to develop guidance on winding in non-working ropes. It must also publish an article in NZ Forestry magazine highlighting the case to raise awareness and promote safer practices across the industry. "This project order is a way for Kohurau to take the lead on delivering initiatives that create genuine sector-wide improvements in forestry. We look forward to seeing the benefits that this industry-led guidance produces," WorkSafe spokesperson Mark Horgan said. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
CTV News
17-06-2025
- CTV News
B.C. tribunal rejects injured worker's claim for $20K rifle under health benefits
A British Columbia tribunal has rejected an injured logger's bid to claim tens of thousands of dollars worth of high-end hunting gear – including a $20,000 rifle and a pair of $3,900 binoculars – as part of his physical rehabilitation following a workplace accident. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal says the decision marks the culmination of a 'lengthy procedural history' of reviews and appeals at various levels within the province's workplace safety and compensation agency, known as WorkSafeBC, involving the health benefits claim. The forestry worker, who is not named in the decision, was injured on the job in 2016, sustaining a 'litany of permanent physical injuries,' including a fractured spine, hearing loss and an amputated forearm. A part of his rehabilitation, the agency already bought the avid outdoorsman an all-terrain vehicle, valued at $40,000, as well as a trailer and a specialized hoist for his garage to lift his dog carrier on and off the vehicle. 'These items were provided to him so that he could go out into the woods to exercise his dogs and train them in cougar tracking,' the tribunal noted in its decision last month, summarizing the observations of an officer who reviewed the case. The injured worker was similarly furnished with a pair of motors for his fishing boat – equipped with specialized electric starters and tilt functions to easily raise and lower them into the water – along with a 'special fishing rod, chest harness and two electric fishing reels.' But when the claimant told his occupational therapist that he was ready to start hunting again, he compiled another list of equipment he intended to expense under his health benefits. 'Semi-custom' rifle sought Prior to his injury, the claimant would hunt animals on foot, shooting them with a rifle at close range, he said. However, due to physical limitations in the wake of the accident, his new plan was to hunt from 'a stand overlooking a large area, and shoot animals from a stable position, from ranges out to and exceeding 1,000 yards,' the appeal tribunal heard. To accomplish the task, the claimant would need an 'extremely lightweight' rifle and scope, chambered for a preferred type of ammunition that costs $180 per box, the tribunal heard. 'He was aware of a particular (rifle) brand which he liked, anticipating that the total cost of his rifle and scope would be in excess of $20,000,' tribunal vice-chair Anand Banerjee wrote in the decision. 'In particular, the worker requested that the board provide him with a semi-custom rifle manufactured by a small American firm called Gunwerks, in a model called the 'ClymR.'' The worker explained that he would be shooting at animals from a range of 800 to 1,700 yards, according to the tribunal, and 'this is why he needed a rifle and scope combination which would be accurate at such extreme distances.' Swarovski binoculars, accessories The claimant would also require a brand-new pair of Swarovski binoculars valued at $3,900. 'The worker expressed the view that lesser brands than Swarovski would cause him to experience eye strain over long hours of use, and this is why he wanted the premium binoculars,' Banerjee wrote. The hunter went on to provide a more detailed wish list in November 2021, explaining that, if the Gunwerks rifle was not available, a titanium rifle built by arms maker Proof Research would be 'an acceptable alternative' at $16,000, the tribunal heard. 'In addition to the Swarovski binoculars, the worker requested a Swarovski-branded forehead rest ($175), a Swarovski-branded universal tripod adapter ($154), a brand-new shooting tripod made by Gunwerks ($650), a Hog Saddle clamping rifle rest for the new tripod ($429) and a brand-new rangefinder which offered ballistic compensation (approximately $1,800),' Banerjee wrote. Prior claims, dismissals When WorkSafeBC rejected the man's itemized request in August 2022, the board noted he had already been provided a rifle through a separate worker's compensation claim in 2013, when he was working as a hunting guide. 'Although you have been provided with a firearm previously, I must consider your current request on its individual merits and circumstances, which means that because you were provided a firearm in the past does not mean that you are currently entitled to another firearm,' the board wrote in its 2022 decision. The board also placed 'significant weight' on the fact that WorkSafeBC could not ensure that a new gun 'will be used in a lawful and safe manner,' it said, denying the request for the gun and the associated hunting gear. The man appealed the decision to WorkSafeBC's review division, which, in February 2023, affirmed the board's dismissal of his request. 'Since the board had already provided the worker with significant recreational items associated with his interest in hunting, (it) was satisfied that nothing further was reasonably necessary,' Banerjee summarized. The man exhausted his last appeal by pleading his case to the tribunal, where Banerjee spent 'several months' and 'obtained a number of books and articles on the various topics relating to long-range shooting, hunting, accuracy, optics, ammunition, ethics, and the price/availability of rifles, optics, and ammunition,' he said. Much of that reading material was provided to the worker at the beginning of this year. 'I made it clear to him that I wished to learn about his experience and knowledge in hunting and long-range shooting, and I was interested in hearing whether he agreed or disagreed with any of the materials provided to him,' Banerjee wrote. Hunter lacks 'skill and experience' Over the course of the appeal hearing, the tribunal vice-chair and the claimant discussed in fine detail the mechanics of different rifles, optics and ammunition, as well as the importance of hunting in the man's life. At the conclusion of the hearing, Banerjee cited three grounds for denying the appeal. First among them was the vice-chair's finding that the claimant 'does not possess the level of skill and experience – or even the desire to master the necessary level of skill and experience' to participate in long-range hunting in any 'meaningful extent.' 'I question whether the proposed long-range hunting even meets the minimal threshold of being something for which the worker has sufficient interest or passion in order to be considered as a health-care benefit,' he wrote. 'Life-or-death decision' Banerjee also expressed concern that the claimant was diagnosed with bouts of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and post-traumatic stress as a result of his injury, with one doctor observing that he had a 'short fuse' and was at risk of self-harm. The same doctor also assessed that the worker was prone to difficulty completing tasks without error 'due to waning attention/fatigue,' adding he 'is able to complete tasks where accuracy is not a critical job requirement.' Banerjee stressed that long-range rife hunting 'is literally defined by the concept of 'accuracy,' both mental and physical' and that such hunters are 'required to make a literal life-or-death decision' based on several simultaneous factors. He also emphasized that providing the gear as part of the worker's health-care benefits would signal an 'implied endorsement' of both the hunter's skill and hunting ethics, as well as an endorsement of the equipment sought, which Banerjee assessed as not likely to result in ethical hunts at such great distances in the hands of the worker. Finally, the tribunal vice-chair explained that the claimant already owns 'a battery of rifles' with high-end scopes, although 'he considers every single one of these rifles to be unsuitable for his new chosen hunting pursuit.' 'If this is the case, then he should be expected to sell or trade in these unsuitable rifles in order to maximize his returns and use the funds to purchase equipment that he prefers,' Banerjee concluded. 'This is a final reason why the worker should not be provided with the requested hunting equipment as a health-care benefit under this claim.'
