May 16, 2025.

When Heavy Vehicle and CoR Protocols Fail: Legal Implications of the Brisbane Wind Turbine Bridge Collision

A truck hauling a wind turbine component crashed into the Mt Crosby bridge on the Warrego Highway near Brisbane around 1.30am today, May 16th. Both the bridge and highway are still closed as of around Close of Business and are likely to remain closed for a protracted period as engineers and DMR personnel work to remove the turbine and assure safety. Police say the driver didn’t follow the pilot and escort vehicles onto the Mount Crosby Rd off-ramp. Instead, he kept going along the Warrego Highway where the oversized load hit the bridge.

This crash brings up big questions about who’s liable under Australia’s transport and workplace safety regulations, particularly the Chain of Responsibility obligations within the HVNL. Let’s look at how the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) and Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws apply here, and what might happen with the inevitable legal investigations.

The Driver Sits Outside “the Chain”

The truck driver who allegedly didn’t follow protocol by ignoring the escort vehicle isn’t technically part of the “Chain of Responsibility” under HVNL. This creates a potentially complicated legal situation.

Section 26A of HVNL establishes that safety responsibility is shared by each party in the chain of responsibility. But drivers themselves are governed by different provisions under WHS Law. They’re not considered part of “the chain”.

The transport company transporting the turbine confirmed one of their trucks was involved, saying it was “carrying wind tower components under escort” and that “the exact circumstances that led to this incident are under investigation.” This careful wording suggests they understand the legal complexities they’re facing.

Further, the company where the turbine to destined to arrive, Wambo Wind Farm, used similar “careful wording” in its response when they confirmed that the incident involved a “subcontractor transporting equipment for the Wambo Wind Farm project.:”

“Early this morning, an incident occurred involving a subcontractor transporting equipment for the Wambo Wind Farm project,” the spokesman said.

“The transport company’s vehicle contacted the Mount Crosby Road bridge on Warrego Highway in Queensland.”
Source: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/warrego-highway-closed-at-north-tivoli-after-truck-slams-into-bridge/news-story/10ddbb7ab24c035d92a5f98f8d8d852c

 

Two Legal Frameworks Overlap

What makes this particularly complicated is the overlap between:

1. Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) – Handles transport through Chain of Responsibility provisions
2. Work Health and Safety (WHS) Laws – Covers broader workplace safety obligations, in this case particularly incumbent on heavy vehicle drivers themselves.

This overlap isn’t accidental. Industry guidance clearly states, “CoR laws are one component to broader WHS legislation so if there is conflict between the HVNL and WHS laws, the WHS law takes precedence over HVNL law.” This hierarchy means even if there’s a gap in how HVNL applies to the driver, WHS laws provide a safety net.

Did the Transport Company Take “Every Reasonably Practicable Measure”?

Investigators will focus on whether the transport provider took “every reasonably practicable measure” to ensure safety – required by both legal frameworks.

They’ll examine several factors:

1. Driver Selection and Training: Was the driver properly trained for escorted oversized loads? Did they have a history of following protocols?
2. Communication Systems: What systems ensured clear communication between escort vehicles and the truck driver? Were route adherence protocols properly established?
3. Risk Assessment: Had the company identified route deviation risks and implemented controls?
4. Supervision and Monitoring: What oversight existed during transport? Were tracking systems in place?

Section 26D of HVNL requires executives to exercise due diligence, meaning upper management could face scrutiny about whether they ensured appropriate resources, processes, and verification systems existed.  This is a critical point we emphasise to all our clients here at CoR Australia.  This is also why rigorous approaches to Audits and Gap Analyses, must be taken.  Undertaking a simple “tick-off” audit based just an industry Code of Conduct may well not have sufficient focus on the Section 26D requirements, to protect directors and executives from personal liability under criminal law (in the case of severe breaches).  This all sheets back to the considerations of Primary Duty under the Heavy Vehicle National Law AND the WHS Law.

Technical Requirements for Oversize Loads

The incident involved a wind turbine component headed to the Wambo Wind Farm, and the load was reportedly being carried under permit. These transport operations are highly regulated:

NHVR guidelines specify that oversize loads require escort vehicles based on their dimensions. Large components like wind turbines typically need multiple escort vehicles, and specific routes must be pre-approved.

The statement that “the load was being carried under permit” shows this was a planned, authorised transport operation – raising questions about why the driver deviated from the approved route. The Department of Transport and Main Roads said they were “reviewing its details,” suggesting potential permit compliance issues.

Potential Legal Consequences

Based on current information, several legal outcomes seem possible:

1. Driver Liability: The driver may face charges under WHS / road transport and safety legislation, but importantly, may not be held liable under CoR provisions specifically.
2. Corporate Liability under HVNL: The transport provider company could face substantial penalties if investigations find they failed to meet their primary duty under Section 26C to ensure transport activity safety “so far as is reasonably practicable.”
3. Executive Liability: Under Section 26D of HVNL, executives could face personal liability if they failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring compliance.
4. WHS Prosecutions: Separate from HVNL penalties, prosecutions under WHS legislation could target both the company and individuals for failing to provide a safe workplace – including vehicles used for work.

The overlap between frameworks means even if there are technical defences under one law, the other may still apply. Maximum penalties under Category 1 offenses reach up to $3 million for corporations and $300,000 plus potential imprisonment for individuals, such as responsible officers, eg. Directors of the Board, and CEO.

Lessons for Transport Operators

This crash reminds transport operators of several key points:

Safety systems must go beyond mere compliance with codes to address the full spectrum of risks.

Driver behavior remains critical, even though drivers are governed by different provisions than other CoR parties.

Companies can’t delegate safety responsibilities simply by hiring competent drivers – they must have systems verifying protocols are followed.

The overlap between HVNL and WHS creates a comprehensive web of obligations that can’t be avoided through technical legal arguments.

As the investigation continues, this case will likely clarify how legal frameworks interact and the extent transport companies can be held responsible for driver actions that deviate from protocols.

For now, cleanup continues on the Warrego Highway, with a stark reminder of what happens when safety systems fail.

To book a CoR Audit for you company, contact us here.