Neglecting employee training can be a ticking time bomb for workplace injuries – Who is liable?

An unfortunate yet common phenomenon, is a lack of training afforded to new employees or employees placed in new positions. Business pressures and the unavailability of a manager with time to guide and properly train an employee are usually the reasons advanced to defend the lack of training. But what happens if an employee gets injured because they have not been trained properly? Can the employer be held accountable for this?

Employers have a common law duty to establish safe working conditions for their employees. This duty extends to the safe use of machinery and equipment. In Hobongwana v Benteler South Africa (Pty) Ltd (494/2019) [2023] ZAECQBHC 6 (6 February 2023) an employee sustained a lower back injury at the employer’s automotive manufacturing plant and instituted a claim for damages against the employer.

In terms of the employee’s employment contract, the employee was obligated to execute the instructions of his manager conscientiously, with a failure to do so potentially resulting in disciplinary action. The equipment at the employer’s plant carried inherent risks of harm to the users thereof, particularly where machinery was used with inexperience or a lack of training.

One day the employee was instructed by his team leader to operate the rear axle assembly line after he had recently been moved from his initial position where he had been operating for 6 months. The instruction was followed by a short demonstration of about 5 to 6 minutes. Once the employee had completed one round of the operation under supervision, he was advised to continue operating the machine and left to work on the line without any supervision and reminded that the client was awaiting its parts. The employee attempted to raise his concerns but they fell on deaf ears and reminded of the terms of his employment contract and that he must execute his instructions. At no stage was the employee declared competent to work on the line nor was he provided with sufficient training on the dangers of operating the machinery and amongst others, training on the applicable safety measures.

In considering the matter, the High Court reiterated the test for establishing negligence and found that the employer was negligent through its failure to adhere to its legal duty to ensure that no persons are instructed or permitted to operate machinery and equipment without first having received the necessary training and proper instruction.

Furthermore, the court found that the employer had failed to take reasonable steps to guard against the dangers inherent in operating the machinery and the training provided to the employee was wholly insufficient to properly equip him to operate the line without any supervision. The employee would not have sustained the injury but for the negligence of the employer and the harm suffered by the employee was therefore foreseeable.

The employer was found liable for the damages and ordered to pay the costs of the hearing including that of the employee’s expert witness who worked as an occupational therapist.

From this case, it should be clear to employers that great care needs to be taken to ensure that employees are adequately instructed, trained, supervised and ultimately declared competent to operate machinery and/or any equipment that may endanger the safety of employees given that a failure to do so can result in liability for the employer should an employee be injured.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).

April 24, 2023
Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that customary marriages and civil marriages hold equal legal status. Importantly, the Court clarified the implications and validity of antenuptial contracts within the context of customary marriages.

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

The recent judgment in Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 October 2025) has brought welcome clarity to the long‑standing question of whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal was incorporated into South African labour law in the 1980s and later codified in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). In terms of section 186(1)(e) of the LRA, an employee may resign, whether with or without notice, and claim unfair dismissal on the basis that their continued employment had become intolerable. Although the concept can be difficult to apply in practice, the Constitutional Court has clarified its meaning and reaffirmed its role within our law.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest