Worker fatally struck by a truck after company's failure to enforce safety procedures

An asphalt-paving company has been fined $450,000 in the NSW District Court after it pleaded guilty to failing to comply with its primary duty of care under section 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The failure resulted in a fatal incident at its worksite in 2021 (SafeWork NSW v State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd [2025]).

The company, State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd, was the principal contractor for the re-sheeting of a roadway at Railway Parade, Allawah. Several other entities were engaged as subcontractors to perform works on site, but the company had both managerial and on-site supervisory control over the site’s traffic management services, including control over worker ‘on foot’ protocols. The subcontractors also provided safe work method statements (SWMSs) in relation to their tasks, including ‘on foot’ protocols. However, at the time of the incident, none of the SWMSs or protocols were being followed or enforced.

On the date of the incident in May 2021, a truck was operating in the ‘truck clean out’ area. When excess asphalt was being loaded onto the truck using a bobcat, a hose on the bobcat burst and required immediate repair. A worker began the repairs in the ‘truck clean out’ area and was not directed at any point to stop working. During the repair of the hose, there were communications to the effect that the truck was “good to go”. The truck then accelerated forwards, crushing and killing the worker.

The ‘Agreed Statement of Facts’ highlighted several factors that led to the incident occurring. Firstly, the SWMSs were silent on the process to follow if plant broke down at the site, and there was no prohibition on repair works being undertaken in the ‘truck clean out’ area (or any other area).

Additionally, despite the company’s risk management system for workers on foot, including a plan to manage communication between workers and mobile plant, the SWMS was defective, as it did not require:

the presence of workers in the zone to be clearly communicated to vehicle operators in or near the area; and
workers in the ‘truck clean out’ area to be supervised by a person with a two-way radio.

Furthermore, there was no signage to specify if the workers were permitted to be on foot or not. This created confusion among the workers about the safety measures that applied in the area.

In her judgment, Her Honour Strathdee acknowledged it was clear that the company had taken steps to identify and plan for risks on the worksite. However, the safety framework could not be effective in minimising or preventing risks as the framework was not being enforced. Her Honour further emphasised that the measures necessary to prevent the incident from occurring were not just reasonably practicable, but self-evidently simple for the company or subcontractors to implement.

The Fair Work Ombudsman unveils comprehensive Payroll Remediation Program Guide
When the Fair Work Ombudsman decides whether to take compliance or enforcement action against an employer that has underpaid its employees, it will look at the steps the employer has taken to remediate the underpayment ...