The Civil Protection Department has been ordered to pay damages to a rescue worker who fell while power washing the oil-smeared deck of a hydraulic platform, suffering a permanent debility.

The workplace accident could have been avoided if the civil protection chief had honoured health and safety regulations and implemented adequate preventive measures, a court of appeal declared.

That was the crux of a judgment handed down by the court of appeal confirming the decision reached by the first court, while slightly lowering the amount of damages awarded to the injured worker. 

Power washing an oily deck 

The case stemmed from an incident dating back to October 2012 when Joseph Azzopardi, a leading assistant rescue officer (LARO) then aged 55, was handed the cleaning task by his station officer at the department’s Xemxija station.

Together with his colleagues, Azzopardi was power washing a heavy vehicle used by the department in its rescue operations, known as a ‘Simon Snorkel Hydraulic Platform,’ when he slipped on its oily roof and fell down a height of some six feet. 

He landed on his right arm, suffering an injury to the upper part of the limb above the elbow. 

He underwent surgery and was discharged from hospital two days later, continuing with therapy sessions over the following months. 

However, his condition called for other surgical interventions and although he retained his job, he was only assigned light duties.

He was certified as suffering a 5% permanent debility which also precluded him from carrying on with his part-time work in maintenance and plastering, as well as helping out at a butcher’s store. 

Azzopardi instituted civil proceedings against the Civil Protection Department, claiming that director was solely responsible for the accident caused by the absence of a ‘safe system of work conduct.’

The applicant requested the court to liquidate damages which were to be paid by the director. 

In 2019, the First Hall, Civil Court upheld Azzopardi’s claims and awarded him €10,265.24 in damages. 

The CPD director appealed that decision. Azzopardi also filed a cross-appeal seeking a higher amount of damages. 

No safety net or harness during routine task 

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Justices Robert G. Mangion and Grazio Mercieca, practically confirmed the first court’s decision except for the amount of damages which was slightly varied. 

The respondent argued that the incident took place during routine work at the station and Azzopardi had admitted that he was aware of the presence of oil which made the work environment a dangerous one. 

The department had given its workers, including Azzopardi, all sorts of training to enable them to protect themselves against the dangers which existed when the accident occurred. 

Additionally, the first court had failed to take into consideration the fact that the work done by CPD officers was inherently risky. 

The court observed that the incident took place when Azzopardi and a colleague were standing on the deck of the hydraulic platform, carrying out the power wash task set out by their superior. 

This was a routine task, regularly carried out in the same manner, with workers standing on the deck without a safety net or harness. 

The director argued that Azzopardi had all safety equipment at his disposal and as a LARO it was his duty to take all precautions when cleaning the oily surfaces of the large vehicles. 

However, the court observed that the cleaning task was set out by the station officer and the incident did not take place during some rescue or firefighting operation. 

Evaluation of inherent risks in washing task “ignored”

“The appellant [director] tried to shift the responsibilities which Chapter 424 [Occupational Health and Safety Authority Act] placed on employers onto the applicant [Azzopardi],” said the court.

On the day of the accident, the station officer did not hand down any instructions for workers to take particular preventive measures to avert the fall. 

Indeed, it was amply proven that prior to this incident and as a rule, workers climbing onto the deck simply wore safety shoes but no harness or other safety gear. 

The station officer who testified in the proceedings said that the director had never performed a risk assessment exercise about the washing of the department’s vehicles. 

The court observed that it was the employer’s responsibility to adopt all measures to prevent physical and psychological harm, as well as injury or death. 

The employer must take all steps to identify work dangers and reduce risks, whilst providing workers with information, training and supervision to ensure health and safety at the workplace. 

While the applicant and his colleagues were afforded all necessary training to carry out rescue operations and firefighting, the evaluation of inherent risks in the washing of large vehicles was ignored. 

The court concluded that Azzopardi had not failed in his health and safety duties as a worker, agreeing with the first court that the incident could have been avoided if the director had honoured his statutory obligations and implemented preventive measures. 

When assessing damages, the court observed that the applicant’s pensionable age was 63 rather than 65 and thus varied slightly the awarded sum to €9,000.

Lawyers Vincent Galea and Alan Zerafa assisted Azzopardi.