Apprenticeship Neglect: “He Should Have Known Better” Isn’t Good Enough

 

Tradies make up approximately 30% of the Australian workforce, but represent almost 60% of workplace injuries. [i]

As you’d expect, it’s usually the apprentices – learning on the job, working with unfamiliar machinery, using dangerous tools, carrying heavy loads and working at heights – who bear the greatest risk.

When things go wrong, employers frequently argue that the danger was obvious and that the apprentice should have been more careful.

Queensland courts, however, have repeatedly rejected that.

That’s where a personal injury lawyer in Queensland can help — and if your injury occurred at work, a WorkCover lawyer in Gold Coast can advise whether you have grounds to make a claim.

 

Queensland Court of Appeal on Apprentice Safety 

 

One of the leading Queensland authorities on this issue is Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270. 

 

Facts 

The plaintiff was a 24 year old trainee electrician. One of his jobs involved cutting pieces of U-shaped steel framing which were used as protective sleeves around electrical cables. 

He cut a piece of steel, placed the sharp offcut on work box next to a ladder, then climbed up the ladder to install the framing. 

When he came back down, his elbow struck the sharp edge of the offcut, severing the ulnar nerve in his elbow.  

The plaintiff said that he was focused on getting the work done, thinking about the next part of the job, and felt under pressure. 

The employer had given him general safety material and a site induction, but there was no real task-specific instruction about how to cut, handle, store, or place these sharp steel offcuts safely. 

 

Legal framework 

Our legal framework is well established for cases like this – employers owe their employees a duty of care to ensure to take reasonable precautions in relation to significant and foreseeable risks of harm in the workplace.  

The live issue in this case, however, was the grey area created by these competing points of law: 

A reasonable employer’s standard of care requires them to take account of the possibility of inadvertent and negligent conduct of their employees; 

BUT 

THEY don’t have to protect careless people from the consequences of their own carelessness.  

So! Was the plaintiff being inadvertent, or was he being careless? 

 

The Parties’ Submissions 

The plaintiff argued that his employer failed to warn him about the hazard posed by sharp offcuts and failed to instruct him how to manage that risk safely. 

The defendant there was no duty to warn because the plaintiff or every peril, and less so regarding risks he himself created. If anything, the plaintiff had been contributorily negligent.

 

At Trial 

At first instance, the Supreme Court agreed with the employer. 

It confirmed that employers do not have to warn employees about every peril and that the weight to be given to an expectation that a worker will take reasonable care for their own safety depends on matters such as the obviousness of the risk and the practicality of self-protection. 

Because the plaintiff knew how to perform the task, the task itself was simple, and he knew he was creating a sharp and potentially dangerous offcut, the Court held that the employer had not breached its duty of care.

 

On Appeal

The plaintiff then appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeal overturned the Supreme Court. It found that: 

• when assessing whether an employer has discharged its duty of care, the Court must take account of the employer’s ability to prescribe safe systems of work, give warnings, issue directions and enforce compliance; and 

• the apprentice had received no training or warning about the handling and placement of dangerous offcuts, and leaving a sharp piece of metal on a toolbox used by workers was not a safe practice. The Court also rejected the argument that requiring a warning in these circumstances would open the door to countless warnings about every workplace hazard. 

• Accordingly, the employer had breached its duty of care and the plaintiff succeeded on appeal.

 

Apprentice injuries and employer fines 

The Queensland Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecturoy (OWHSP) has published similar decisions and fines involving apprentices and young and/or inexperienced tradies getting injured.  

Decision	Worker and Incident	Identified Failures	Penalty
Redcliffe Magistrates Court (2024)	16-year-old apprentice carpenter suffered amputation injuries using a drop saw	No written safe work procedure, deficient training and supervision	$80,000 fine
Dalby Magistrates Court (2025)	17-year-old apprentice injured using a hydraulic press	No documented procedure, inadequate supervision, lack of engineering controls	$75,000 fine
Southport Magistrates Court (2025)	21-year-old apprentice diesel mechanic killed in an explosion involving a metal drum	Inadequate training, inadequate supervision, no risk assessment, no safe work procedure	$400,000 fine
Mackay Magistrates Court (2025)	16-year-old apprentice injured when metal sheets fell from makeshift racking	No safe work procedure, inadequate training, inadequate risk assessment	$80,000 fine
Chinchilla Magistrates Court	16-year-old school-based apprentice diesel mechanic fatally crushed beneath a hook-lift bin	Inadequate supervision of inexperienced worker performing hazardous task	Conviction recorded
Toowoomba Magistrates Court (2019)	19-year-old apprentice injured using a circular saw	Brief verbal induction only, no task-specific training, left working alone	$75,000 fine
Richlands Magistrates Court (2017)	15-year-old first-year apprentice plumber injured near an unsupported trench	Inadequate supervision of young worker	$40,000 fine
Beenleigh Magistrates Court (2024)	17-year-old worker injured operating meat-processing machinery	Inadequate training and supervision, unsafe practices learned from co-workers	$70,000 fine
Beenleigh Magistrates Court (2025)	16-year-old volunteer worker killed by unmanned roller	Inadequate training, competency assessment and supervision	$400,000 fine
Bundaberg Magistrates Court (2025)	19-year-old labourer injured when a 970kg steel load fell	No documented system of work, inadequate instruction and risk assessment	$65,000 fine
Ipswich Magistrates Court (2024)	16-year-old worker suffered partial finger amputation while cleaning machinery	Inadequate guarding, inadequate instructions and supervision	$75,000 fine
Beenleigh Magistrates Court (2025)	Workshop manager prosecuted after incidents involving young workers using dangerous machinery	Inadequate supervision, training and competency assessment	$35,000 personal fine
Bundaberg Magistrates Court (2023)	Untrained worker injured using an unguarded hydraulic press	Unsafe plant and inadequate training	$100,000 fine
Beenleigh Magistrates Court (2025)	Worker suffered facial fractures due to unsafe system of work	Failure to implement and enforce safe work procedures	$45,000 fine

 

Proving your employer’s negligence in a common law claim for workers’ compensation 

The lesson from Heywood and the many workplace prosecutions that have followed is simple – an employer cannot always avoid responsibility by saying an apprentice “should have known better”, even if they create the hazard that injures them. 

If you or someone you know has been injured during an apprenticeship, there may be entitlements available through WorkCover Queensland and a common law damages claim against the employer. 

At Claimwise, our clients save 62% on average in legal fees compared to injured workers that use traditional personal injury law firms.  

Be smart, claim wise. 

---

[i] https://citynews.com.au/2022/the-importance-of-keeping-tradies-safe-at-work-2/