Coroner’s Investigation Case Number: 1076-05

Incident Summary:
Mr B was a delivery crane truck driver with approximately 4 years experience. His daily routine involved the delivery of various hardware items to businesses and worksites. The delivery truck was fitted with a hydraulic crane mounted between the cabin and the tray of the truck.

On the day of his death, Mr B was preparing to unload his third delivery for the day. He unfolded the crane using the operating controls on the driver’s side of the truck.

Whilst there are control panels on both sides of the truck, operating instructions clearly stated that the operator was not to use the control panel on the driver’s side of the truck when unfolding or refolding the crane.

It is safe and proper practice to unfold the crane from the passenger side of the truck as the crane itself sits behind the cab and unfolds from the driver’s side.
Residents of the street where Mr B was unloading were alerted by a loud noise and when attending the truck found Mr B trapped between the arm of the crane and the vehicle’s control panel. It appeared that because Mr B was pinned against the control panel, he was unable to free himself. Emergency services were called but were unable to render any assistance to Mr B who died as a result of the incident.

Investigation:
An autopsy was performed and found no medical reason for Mr B’s loss of control of the crane and traumatic asphyxia was found to be the cause of death.

As part of the WorkSafe investigation, the crane was tested by an independent body who found it to be faultless. At the time of purchase, the crane complied with Australian Standards. The operational lever’s movement in the same direction of the crane was deemed a logical and efficient design.

Findings and Recommendations:
The Coroner found that whilst Mr B had “caused his own death…it could have been prevented if additional safety features had been in place and he had not been working alone with dangerous equipment.”

The Coroner recommended that to reduce the risks associated with using such machinery, the accepted practice across industries of using hydraulic machinery while working alone must be changed.

There was no clear evidence to suggest that Mr B was under unrealistic pressure to meet delivery times and it was unknown whether Mr B ignored proper safety procedures because of this. It was noted, however, that should Mr B have been working with someone, the appropriate safety measures may have been taken.

The Coroner recommended that:

• The employer assign two workers for all deliveries where the hydraulic crane will be used;
• The hydraulic crane manufacturer include in the operator manual a recommendation that a spotter be available to the crane operator;
• WorkSafe issue regular Safety Alerts on the dangers of operating these machines and the importance of a spotter; and
• that there be a mandate for all imported vehicles to follow current legislation i.e. have fitted an Emergency Stop button and protective covers over the control panels of cranes.