Story here:

Stray Sherrin Story

Garbage!

Wouldn't it be grocons or the mcc's responsibility to maintain the workers are safe from any stray footballs?

Funny stuff. Fair to say this guy isn't a Melbourne supporter. But seriously, what a tool.

Wouldn't it be grocons or the mcc's responsibility to maintain the workers are safe from any stray footballs?

You would think that would be the case.

$22,000 in medical expenses... he better have had brain surgery!

No surprises to see Slater and Gordon involved. One step above Nowicki Carbone in the ambulance chaser premier league.

Who's representing the sherrin?

For a start, Grocon should be held responsible for not ensuring he was wearing his PPE when on site.

If he were wearing a hardhat, I don't see how this could possibly happen.

On top of that, Grocon has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees and subcontractors, but if the onus is somehow shifted from them, I would have thought it would land on the management of the stadium itself, not the football team training on the ground.

Seriously dodgy claim that will likely not go very far.

FFS concussion from a footy to the head? Humpty Dumpty would've had a harder cranium than this bloke!

For a start, Grocon should be held responsible for not ensuring he was wearing his PPE when on site.

If he were wearing a hardhat, I don't see how this could possibly happen.

On top of that, Grocon has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees and subcontractors, but if the onus is somehow shifted from them, I would have thought it would land on the management of the stadium itself, not the football team training on the ground.

Seriously dodgy claim that will likely not go very far.

Are you assuming he did not have a hard hat on, or do you know?

If work cover are following it up, they must have a reasonable case you would imagine.

Grocon probably did provide a safe working environment for their employees and subcontractors - minus of stray footy's.

We have officially turned into a soft-[censored], nanny state.

No, if you read carefully, I implied that he wasn't wearing a hardhat, because I can't see how it would happen if he were wearing one.

And in that case, it'd be either Grocon at fault for not enforcing the wearing of one, or his own fault for ignoring instructions.

If Grocon provided a safe environment, save for the occurrence of stray footballs, at a facility for the purpose of kicking said footballs, then I'd say they failed in their duty.

Not sure how some idiot making a dodgy workers comp claim reflects on us living in a nanny-state.

That's a bit of a misguided comment.

And he still managed towork for another 2 years.. lol.. whats the bet NO ONE saw it. This Natale's probably related to the dodgy brothers. Sounds like the old insurance scam doesnt it.

No, if you read carefully, I implied that he wasn't wearing a hardhat, because I can't see how it would happen if he were wearing one.

And in that case, it'd be either Grocon at fault for not enforcing the wearing of one, or his own fault for ignoring instructions.

If Grocon provided a safe environment, save for the occurrence of stray footballs, at a facility for the purpose of kicking said footballs, then I'd say they failed in their duty.

Not sure how some idiot making a dodgy workers comp claim reflects on us living in a nanny-state.

That's a bit of a misguided comment.

You assume and take out of context far too quickly Gareth.

Opinons are fine, opinionated is annoying.

You assume and take out of context far too quickly Gareth.

Opinons are fine, opinionated is annoying.

So... you're annoying?

Look, you misread what I said.

I clarified it for you.

So... you're annoying?

Look, you misread what I said.

I clarified it for you.

If it was a 'seriously dodgy claim', said in your own words, why would workcover be trying to claim off MFC? It must have substance no matter how trivial it seems otherwise workcover would have sniffed out the rat a long time ago and it would never have got to this point.

Yes soft for not being able to cop a footy in the head, hard hat or not.

Nanny state for the process having been entertained to begin with.

For a start, Grocon should be held responsible for not ensuring he was wearing his PPE when on site.

If he were wearing a hardhat, I don't see how this could possibly happen.

On top of that, Grocon has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees and subcontractors, but if the onus is somehow shifted from them, I would have thought it would land on the management of the stadium itself, not the football team training on the ground.

Seriously dodgy claim that will likely not go very far.

It is a dicey one. Say you work for the government; you are one these guys who visit homes knocking door to door (most probably through a sub-contractor arrangement) to replace existing light bulbs with energy efficient ones. In getting to the next door you need to knock on, you have to walk on the footpath past a residential construction site. A tradesman is operating an angle grinder on this site, and while performing this duty, a stray metal filing flies off the cutting blade and hits you, rendering you blind in one eye, with a big medical bill and your injuries are permanent and severely impair your ability to earn a living. Who is responsible for your safety? (after yourself of course).

It is a dicey one. Say you work for the government; you are one these guys who visit homes knocking door to door (most probably through a sub-contractor arrangement) to replace existing light bulbs with energy efficient ones. In getting to the next door you need to knock on, you have to walk on the footpath past a residential construction site. A tradesman is operating an angle grinder on this site, and while performing this duty, a stray metal filing flies off the cutting blade and hits you, rendering you blind in one eye, with a big medical bill and your injuries are permanent and severely impair your ability to earn a living. Who is responsible for your safety? (after yourself of course).

In my view:

The duty of care falls between both the employer and the management.

Those managing the hypothetical construction site would be at fault - they have a duty of care towards both the subcontractors and the general public.

It would be the same on the MCG construction site, with the Head Contractor being responsible.

The rest of the stadium would come under the responsibility of the stadium management - they'd have a duty of care to manage the use of the ground as a training facility and ensure the safety of all users.

The facilities management would have to reasonably expect stray kicks to occur if the ground was being used for training purposes.

The MFC can't be held responsible for providing safety to other visitors / users to the facility. That is not their domain.

P*** off. The Melbourne Football Club does not own the MCG and did not have any connection to any works being performed on the facility.

If i walked down the street near a construction site and had a hammer land on my head, i would not be suing the subcontractor who dropped it, i would be suing the company doing the construction.

Somebody's been keeping an eye on Debt Demolition and wants a payout.

What odds would you get that the errant punt came off the boot of a shanked Juice Newton shot for goal?

Surely this would be a mitigating factor in any lawsuit.

Edited September 2, 201114 yr by Range Rover

Workcover under, I think it's section 54 of the act, have the right to recover their costs against any negligent third party and this includes where an employee is working under sub contract.

Workcover is using the Liability Insurance of employees as an extension of Workcover itself.

Example: Builder hires a worker from a Labour Hire company and the worker comes under a package that includes all his costs, wages, superannuation and Workcover. The worker is injured on site and the Labour Hire company's Workcare provider pays out the compensation. They then ferret around to see if anyone was negligent and if it was the Builder, even though he had paid the cost of the worker's Workcover under the package arrangement they are able to sue him and pass the cost on to his Liability insurer, if he has cover under that policy.

Workcare was going broke and they have successfully turned that around by sheeting the costs back to private insurer's using this devious method, Liability Insurers are now Pseudo Workcover Insurers and this is driving up the costs and excesses. Some Builders have excesses of $100k plus for worker to worker related injuries.

As an occupier of the facility the MFC should have every right to assume that all workers engaged should be adequately protected and adequately insured.

Edited September 2, 201114 yr by RobbieF

This is a matter for the builder, the MCC and the MFC's insurers.

Nothing to see here.

Let's move along.

What odds would you get that the errant punt came off the boot of a shanked Juice Newton shot for goal?

Surely this would be a mitigating factor in any lawsuit.

I don't know if I'm allowed to say, but you're not that far off!!!

wont go far in court. if so dees only owe small duty of care. duty of care primarily owed by the workers employers of the time (they should be 60-70% liable). if he wasn't wearing a hard hat he has contributed to his injury through negligence further reducing the amount able to be claimed (given he himself has made him liable). tool of the highest order.

What is this world coming to, my misses got hit in the face with a soccer ball that Rod Stewart kicked off the stage during his concert. It knocked her glasses to the floor. After a bit of ice and the nice lady sitting next fixing her glasses (she ironically worked for OPSM) she was on her way.

WTF!

What is this world coming to, my misses got hit in the face with a soccer ball that Rod Stewart kicked off the stage during his concert. It knocked her glasses to the floor. After a bit of ice and the nice lady sitting next fixing her glasses (she ironically worked for OPSM) she was on her way.

WTF!

Surely Sherrin must wear a large percentage of blame. It must have been foreseeable to Mr Sherrin that in the normal use of the ball someone could have got hit in the head. Making the ball oval only increases that likelihood and nowhere on the ball is there any safety warnings or conditions of use. Having two pointy ends to the ball only turns it into more of a weapon or missile than a true ball. A Sherrin in the hands of a Juice Newton is a recipe for disaster yet no-one is advised or required to obtain a Sherrin-kicking licence. The MFC should immediately start using lightweight rubber or plastic balls in traing until this disgraceful set of affairs is resolved.

Keep in mind..its not OUR ground.. The MCG (MCC) oversee all things. They ultimately have responsibility ( though in this case it sounds like a rort )