Canberra Institute of Technology was sued in the ACT Supreme Court. Photo: Google Maps
A removalist has won nearly $1.3 million after being injured while working at the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT).
The then-29-year-old had worked for Balfran Removals and was part of a team of removalists sent to the CIT campus in Bruce for a job in October 2022, a recently released ACT Supreme Court decision says.
He said they arrived to find a large quantity of items – including desks, filing cabinets, chairs, safes and heaters – which he was told had to be thrown into skip bins.
While the team packed up the items and moved them to the 1.5 metre-high bins, the removalist said a CIT facilities manager would not let them open the bins to walk the items inside and also told them not to park their truck in a way that would block the road.
This meant they could not get to the truck in a way that would let them throw the items straight into the bins.
The removalist said they parked the truck alongside the bins, and then he had to twist his body to throw the furniture into them.
While throwing a 30 kg piece of desk, he said he felt a sharp pain down his leg and fell over. He couldn’t stand and was taken to hospital.
“As a result, [he] suffered a significant injury which left him with long-term disability,” Acting Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace said.
The removalist sued Balfran and CIT seeking damages for the injuries he received from their alleged negligence and they reached a settlement in which he would be awarded $1,271,287.
Acting Justice Ainslie-Wallace said Balfran conceded it breached the duty of care it owed the removalist.
“Here, the risk of harm was that [he] might injure himself if forced to lift and twist to place items in the skip bin, and that risk was both foreseeable and not insignificant,” she said.
Balfran argued that CIT also breached its duty of care to the removalist, but CIT claimed it bore no liability for his injury.
CIT argued its role was limited to identifying the items to be removed, specifying where they were to be taken, and reminding Balfran’s crew not to block the roads.
Acting Justice Ainslie-Wallace did not accept this argument and said CIT’s restrictions imposed on how the removalist and his colleagues were to do the job.
She said by working within the imposed restrictions, the removalist and his crew had no option but to adopt an unsafe system of work. She found that CIT breached its duty of care, making it liable for the injury.
“[Balfran] failed to have in place a system of providing direction to its employees when faced with difficulties in performing their work, particularly as here, when the difficulties render the method of performing the work unsafe,” the acting justice said.
“[CIT] imposed conditions on the way in which the work could be done, stopped the workers from using two safe methods of performing the work and exposed them to risk of injury from employing an unsafe system.”
CIT’s conditions meant the way the work was to be performed was “patently unsafe”, she said.
Balfran and CIT were ordered to each pay half of the sum to be awarded to the removalist, plus his legal costs. Both organisations were approached for comment.
“CIT has no comment on this matter. The institute aims to provide a safe environment for our staff, students, and contractors at all times,” a CIT spokesperson said.
Shells Bells I didn’t know it was still there. The area around it is very built up! View