When prevention fails: a $60,000 wake-up call for manufacturing safety

In October 2025, a manufacturing company in Queensland was fined $60,000 after a serious injury occurred due to exposed machinery. The case, reported on the Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor (OWHSP) website, serves as a stark reminder of how predictable risks, when left unaddressed, can lead to human harm, regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage.

This blog explores the facts of the case, the regulatory context, the lessons for manufacturing and broader industry, and what companies must do to avoid ending up in a similar position.

The facts: what happened

According to the court report:

• On February 15, 2023, a worker at a garage door manufacturing company was clearing scrap metal from a roll former machine when the "scrap metal conveyor component" failed and was subsequently removed. This left a gap of 790 cm (a massive gap, so I'm guessing it's likely meant to read 790mm) through which the worker could walk, bypassing the safety light curtain.

• The roll former moulded and cut metal sheets in the production of garage doors. The machine’s moving parts were exposed through the gap, allowing access to parts that should have been guarded.

• As the worker leaned over the roll former after walking past the light curtain, his hand was caught in the moving parts. The injury was serious: traumatic amputation of his index and middle fingers and degloving of his thumb.

• The company was convicted under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) for breaching section 32 (failure of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to comply with its duty) and section 19(1) (primary duty of care).

• At the sentencing in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 15 October 2025, the magistrate noted that the risks were foreseeable, inexpensive prevention measures were available, and that the duration of the risk was irrelevant. The exposure to serious injury was enough to justify a penalty.

• The company pleaded guilty, cooperated, had no prior convictions, and had taken significant steps to improve safety since the incident. These factors reduced the penalty.

• The fine was $60,000 plus costs of $1,605.35.

Why this matters

Foreseeable risk

In manufacturing, machines with moving or rotating parts are recognised as a significant hazard. When the scrap conveyor was removed, it created an unguarded gap. That allowed workers to bypass the safety systems, including a light curtain, and access dangerous moving parts.

The risk was clear and expected. This was a classic safety issue, devoid of standard controls such as guards, barriers, and exclusion zones.

The court emphasised that a risk did not have to exist for a long time to be serious.

The mere fact that exposure to serious injury existed was enough to warrant legal action.

Duty of care and control

Under the WHS Act, a PCBU has a duty to ensure the health and safety of workers so far as is reasonably practicable. In this case, the company allowed access to the machine's moving parts.

Controls that should have been in place included:

• Fixed or temporary barriers to block the exposed area

• Mandatory procedures requiring machine lockout before access

• Visual signage or physical bollards while the conveyor was removed

The lack of these measures meant the risk was both foreseeable and preventable.

Consequences

The human cost was immediate and severe. The injured worker suffered life-changing trauma and faces lasting impacts.

The company faced legal and financial costs. Beyond the fines and legal fees, they may also have to contend with higher insurance premiums, increased regulatory scrutiny, and internal disruptions.

This case shows that when basic safety is neglected, the consequences extend well beyond a single moment.

Lessons for industry

Here’s what companies operating machinery should learn from this incident.

1. Don’t wait for something to go wrong

If machine guarding is removed, even temporarily, interim controls are necessary. That could include bollards, tape, signage or stopping machine operations altogether.

The conveyor was removed, and no barrier was installed. That gap made it easy for someone to enter a dangerous area without triggering any safety system.

2. Risk assessments must include temporary states

You can’t only plan for “normal” operation. You need to consider what happens when a part is removed, machinery is serviced, or temporary fixes are applied.

In this case, the machine remained operational despite a significant safety component being missing.

3. Training and reinforcement matter

Although procedures may have been in place, they were not followed. A light curtain was in place, but it was bypassed.

That’s not just a technical failure; it’s a cultural one. Training must be precise, repeatable, and supported by real supervision.

4. Physical barriers are not optional

The magistrate highlighted that there were inexpensive and straightforward ways to prevent the injury.

Physical guards, fencing or bollards would have stopped workers from walking into the danger zone. These should never be an afterthought.

5. Cooperating after an incident helps, but does not erase the breach

The company did the right thing after the incident: it pleaded guilty, cooperated and improved safety. But these actions only reduced the fine. They didn’t stop the prosecution. Once a serious breach occurs, consequences follow.

6. Safety isn’t one and done

Safety controls must be monitored and maintained over time. Machines wear down. Workers come and go. A one-time fix isn’t enough. Ongoing review is essential.

A simple checklist for machinery safety

If you run a business with manufacturing equipment, here’s a quick list of questions to ask:

• Are all moving parts properly guarded?

• What happens if a component is removed or fails?

• Are there interim controls in place to prevent worker access when parts are missing?

• Do workers understand safe procedures for isolation and lockout?

• Are your light curtains and other safety devices working and regularly tested?

• Can someone easily bypass the safety system?

• Is your training up to date, and do supervisors enforce it?

• Are machine safety checks routinely performed and documented?

The law: what it requires

The WHS Act requires employers to ensure safety “so far as is reasonably practicable.”

This includes providing and maintaining safe machinery, systems of work, training, supervision and environment. There are regulations, codes, standards, and guides readily available, all of which can be considered as reasonable knowledge.

Prosecution, fines, and other penalties can follow a breach of this duty, particularly when a worker sustains serious injuries.

In this case, the company breached section 19(1) and was found guilty under section 32.

The maximum penalty was $1.5 million. The court imposed a $60,000 fine because of mitigating factors. Still, it sent a strong message: failing to control known risks carries real consequences.

Make safety real, not theoretical

This incident is a clear example of how a simple failure can lead to permanent harm.

A key machine part failed. A safety barrier was missing. A worker walked through a gap. His hand got caught in moving machinery.

Everything that happened was predictable and preventable.

Companies must stop assuming machines will always function as intended. The moment something breaks, the risk landscape changes. Your systems must adapt in real time.

And... NEVER, EVER default to blaming a worker; it's not appropriate, mature or even relevant when systems are being investigated. It's about managing risk(s).

Turn this lesson into action

This case should prompt every manufacturer and industrial operator to conduct a fresh review of their machinery, barriers, procedures and training.

Do your systems hold up when a machine breaks down?

Are workers able to access hazardous areas with too much ease?

Are interim risks taken seriously?

Are you assuming things are safe when they’re not?

If the answer to any of those questions is unclear, now’s the time to act.

Final thought

The $60,000 fine was relatively modest. But the human cost was devastating.

This wasn’t an obscure hazard. It was a fundamental failure of guarding and control.

For any company with industrial machinery, the message is simple: don’t let routine gaps in safety become permanent scars for your workers.

Stay safe!