Case Update: Alberta’s Highest Court Hears Appeal In Calf-Roping Fatality Case – Decision Reserved

more+
less-

In December 2012, we posted a blog outlining the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision in R v. Technologies Inc. 2012 ABQB 549 in a fatal accident case involving the use of a “calf roping” machine at a Stampede party event hosted by XI Technologies Inc. (“XI”) in 2007.  A software developer who was helping operate the machine was struck in the head by a steel lever and later died from his injuries. 

The Court of Queen’s Bench overturned two “not guilty” verdicts holding that the employer had not raised a successful due diligence defence and that the preventative measures which were adopted by the employer to respond to the hazard were inadequate considering the risk such that the machine ought to have been removed from service.  XI had been granted permission from Alberta’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, to appeal those convictions.    

The Alberta Court of Appeal heard argument on June 13, 2013.  The Decision was reserved.  We expect that the Court of Appeal’s reasons will be of significant importance to employers as we anticipate that the law in respect of the degree of hazard analysis and identification that must be taken and the corresponding level of precautions or preventative steps that must be implemented will be clarified.

Stay tuned.

- See more at: http://www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com/case-update-albertas-highest-court-hears-appeal-in-calf-roping-fatality-case-decision-reserved#sthash.nPb0tO3A.dpuf

In December 2012, we posted a blog outlining the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision in R v. Technologies Inc. 2012 ABQB 549 in a fatal accident case involving the use of a “calf roping” machine at a Stampede party event hosted by XI Technologies Inc. (“XI”) in 2007.  A software developer who was helping operate the machine was struck in the head by a steel lever and later died from his injuries. 

The Court of Queen’s Bench overturned two “not guilty” verdicts holding that the employer had not raised a successful due diligence defence and that the preventative measures which were adopted by the employer to respond to the hazard were inadequate considering the risk such that the machine ought to have been removed from service.  XI had been granted permission from Alberta’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, to appeal those convictions.    

The Alberta Court of Appeal heard argument on June 13, 2013.  The Decision was reserved.  We expect that the Court of Appeal’s reasons will be of significant importance to employers as we anticipate that the law in respect of the degree of hazard analysis and identification that must be taken and the corresponding level of precautions or preventative steps that must be implemented will be clarified.

Stay tuned.

Topics:  Canada, Due Diligence, Safety Precautions, Workplace Injury

Published In: Criminal Law Updates, Labor & Employment Updates, Personal Injury Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dentons | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »