Warmings, We know Construction Compensation Claims

What Does Warmings Know About Construction Accidents That Sets Us Apart?

At Warmings, we take immense pride in the results we achieve for our Workers’ Compensation clients. When it comes to construction accident claims, we don’t just understand the law — we understand the work. Whether it’s navigating complex liability issues or accurately quantifying our clients’ losses, Warmings knows construction claims inside and out.

More Than Just Lawyers: Extensive Industry Experience

What truly sets Warmings apart is not only our legal expertise but also our firsthand experience in construction.

Before becoming a lawyer, Sam Warming spent eight years in the construction industry, gaining invaluable insight into the realities of life on-site.

As a qualified carpenter, Sam’s resume includes:

• Six years as a carpenter working in residential and commercial construction.
• Two years as a supervisor, specializing in formwork, steel fixing, and concrete.
• Coordinating trades and equipment, including cranes, concrete pumps, electricians, and plumbers.
• Collaborating with key stakeholders, such as engineers, safety officers, and architects; University, completing a number of specialised construction subjects.

This background gives Warmings a unique advantage in understanding construction processes, safety protocols, and workplace dynamics, allowing us to approach your claim with unmatched expertise.

Key Elements of a Construction WorkCover Claim

1) Identifying the Appropriate Respondents

Construction sites are complex environments with multiple parties involved. Understanding how these sites operate enables us to determine all potential respondents, including:

• Employers
• Principal contractors/Builders
• Labour hire companies Sub-contractors
• Engineers

Our deep understanding of these relationships and the conduct between the parties occurs, ensures no stone is left unturned when identifying liable parties.

2) Understanding the Duty of Care

Each respondent has a specific duty of care, which varies depending on their role. We leverage our construction knowledge to:

• Define what each respondent’s duty of care entailed
• Evaluate whether that duty was breached
• Provide you with advice on who to proceed against

By way of example, a common defence pleaded by respondents in construction claims, is that the tasks was delegated to a competent contractor. A lot of plaintiff lawyers would think it is reasonable for a principal contractor to defend a claim for an injury that was caused by a contractor’s negligence. After all, on face value the High Court of Australia confirmed as much in the case of Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35.

• That case involved Mr Fox, a concrete pump employee who was injured whilst a concrete pump line was being blown out. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd was the builder/principal contractor, and Downview Pty Ltd was engaged by Leighton Contracting to carry out concreting works including formwork, steel fixing and placing. Downview engaged Warrant Stewart Pty Ltd to perform the concrete pumping, who was also Mr Fox’s employer.
• In that case, the High Court found in that case, where a competent contractor was engaged, and provided that the activity of concrete pumping was placed in the contractor’s hands, neither Leightons nor Downview were not subject to an ongoing general law obligation with respect to the safety of the work methods employed by the contractor or those with whom the contractor subcontracted.

The ratio that comes from Leight Contractors, is that it is a defence to a claim if a principal contractor or other contractor delegated a task to a competent contractor. Again, whether or not that case applies, depends on a more detailed understanding of the law and the factual matrix leading up to the accident.

Let’s consider two examples: Example 1 – a scaffolder injured from scaffolding collapsing In this scenario, let’s assume that a scaffolder was injured from scaffold collapsing after it was struck by a forklift being driven by another contractor. Let’s also assume, as was the case in Leightons, that the contractor driving the forklift had been de-registered and the Claimant could not recover those damages.

Again, a lot of lawyers may accept a principal contractor’s defence that it delegated the task of operating a forklift to a competent contractor. But what if the principal contractor:

1. Changed the design of scaffold in a way that may have been the cheapest, but did not allow machinery to move through the site without coming into close proximity with scaffold. I.e. No Ladder beams were used to create a path because of the cost of additional scaffold bracing;
2. Placed obstacles on site preventing a forklift from navigating the site without coming into close proximity of scaffold;
3. Failed to install barriers between machinery and the scaffold;
4. Refused to have spotters when asked while the forklift was operating near scaffold.

In those circumstances, a principal contractor may be partly liable for the accident, allowing a Claimant to access additional damages and increase the value of their claim. See for example section 3.2 of the Scaffolding Code of Practice 2021. This of course depends on the details, but these are questions that need to be asked.

Example 2 – concreter injured by a concrete pump owned by his employer

In an accident where a worker is injured by a concrete pump, a principal contractor would likely seek to defend a claim on the basis it did not operate the concrete pump, and delegated the task to a competent contractor (i.e. they paid a concrete pumping company).

But what if the cause of the accident was the concrete pump collapsing into soft soil and the boom striking the worker. A lot of lawyers may not be familiar with the Concrete Pumping Code of Practice 2019, which requires a principal contractor to determine an appropriate place for a concrete pump to be placed, having regard to the suitability of the soil below it. I.e. is it recently installed fill that is soft, does the ground have a live power cable below which cannot stand significant force, what kind of substrate is there and what rate of force can that substrate handle if outriggers are focused on wet clay? See Section 4.2.

In those circumstances, the defence of delegating the concrete pumping to a competent contractor would be unlikely to be accepted, because the cause of the accident was not the concrete pump’s actions, but the principal contractor decision of where to place the pump.

3) Establishing the Damages that our client’s are entitled to

In order to prove the damages that follow an injury, it is necessary to demonstrate how an injury affects a person. In particular, a person’s ability to do their work and earn an income.

The rules of evidence require opinion evidence to be provided by an expert. Most opinion evidence in compensation claims is given by doctors. I.e. “The injuries are consistent with the circumstances of the accident…Due to his injuries, he will be unable to carry more than 5 kilograms…”.

A question that is often asked of doctors, is whether or not a Claimant is restricted in performing their employment. A lot, if not most, doctors do not know what each job actually requires. In order to properly brief experts, it is often necessary to provide detail on exactly what someone does including the tasks and mechanical movements associated with those roles. After all, unless a doctor knows what you are actually doing day to day, how can a doctor comment on whether or not your injury affects your ability to do those things – they don’t!

• By way of example, we recently ran a case where a defendant expert tried to assert that our client’s injuries did not affect his ability to work as a plasterer. Our client worked in Brisbane and had worked as a plasterer for around 8 years. He did not have experience doing other meaningful work. They suggested a duck lifter would be appropriate, and in any event, plastering was light work.
• This simply isn’t the case. We know that the average sheet size delivered on a residential construction site is 6m x 1350mm, and weighs around 5.7kg per square metre. I.e. around 46 kilograms. We also know that plasterboard needs to be lifted into awkward positions, often requiring uneven weight distribution and sheeters to be simultaneously using a screw gun. We also know Fyrecheck and Aquacheck weigh more Again. We are also aware that a lot of plasterers are paid by metre rate and often work together in crews. If one plasterer has a back injury, it slows the whole crew down.
• Due to our understanding of these issues, we were able to properly quantify our client’s damages and discredit the defendant expert. Without a proper understanding of how plastering works on site, it is not possible to properly establish damages, particular when defendant doctors suggest Claimant’s are capable of performing their ordinary role.

We take the time to understand your role and its physical demands, ensuring we present a comprehensive case for your losses.

The Warmings Advantage: Expertise That Works for You

Our in-depth knowledge of construction and the legal system means:

• We know the evidence to gather and how to present it.
• We can often anticipate and counter the defendants’ arguments effectively.
• You won’t waste time explaining the intricacies of your job or what happened to us.

We articulate your case clearly and convincingly, helping you secure the compensation you deserve.

Case Studies: Real Results Case Study 1: Carpenter’s Injury

A carpenter involved in a workplace accident on the Gold Coast sustained injuries that, while not severe on paper, prevented him from performing his job.

The defendant’s doctor claimed his injuries did not impact on his ability to be a carpenter. Due to our understanding of construction we were able to:

• Set out in detail the tasks carpenters are required to perform, including the mechanics of those injuries;
• The physical demands of his role;
• Obtain statements from industry professionals verifying his role, and his inability to work as a carpenter;
• Successfully argue against the defendant’s medical report.

This resulted in us being able to discredit the defendant’s doctor, enabling our client to obtain proper compensation and continue supporting his family.

Case Study 2: Arm Injury on a Commercial Site

A worker injured his arm in a complex accident on a Brisbane Construction Site. The case involved delayed reporting and our client continued to work despite being injured.

On face value, our client’s claim appeared to have some significant issues, primarily with respect to causation, credibility and contributory negligence.

Due to our understanding of the roles of each person on site, the way these companies can work, we were able to:

1. Extract reasons as to why our client did not report the injury by way of an incident report, including his employer’s attempt to hide a Lost Time Injury;
2. Provide evidence the accident happened as our client alleged;
3. Understand why the task causing the injury was organised the way it was;
4. Argue simple solutions, applicable to that job site, which would have removed the risk of injury to our client;
5. Demonstrate that whilst our client’s employer alleged there was proper training, the training was not sufficient and not being followed.

By gathering supporting statements and properly presenting our client’s case, we secured a favourable outcome for our client from the start.

Why Warmings?

When it comes to construction accident claims, our clients benefit from:

• Practical, hands-on construction experience.
• Strategic legal expertise.
• A commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes.

At Warmings, we don’t just understand your claim—we understand your work. Let us fight for the compensation you deserve.