Date of incident: July 2023
Notice of incident number: 2023194970009
Employers: Firefighting contractor; wildland firefighting service (prime contractor)

Incident summary
A wildland firefighting crew was performing fire suppression duties in a remote location. Two workers were in a utility terrain vehicle (UTV) on a resource road, driving to another site to obtain fuel for a water pump. The UTV left the roadway to avoid an oncoming vehicle and rolled over the edge of an approximately 4 m embankment. One of the workers sustained injuries and the other sustained fatal injuries.

Investigation conclusions

Cause

• Unrestrained worker ejected from UTV. The UTV turned off the road to avoid oncoming traffic and inadvertently drove off a steep embankment. One of the workers was not wearing a seat belt and one side of the UTV’s retention netting was damaged and not effective.

Contributing factors

• Lack of safe work procedures. The prime contractor — which was also the employer of the UTV operator — did not implement any safe work procedures or policies related to the safe operation of UTVs. Such safe work procedures likely would have identified the requirement to use seat belts, retention netting, and appropriate helmets.
• Lack of training. The prime contractor recognized the need for specific UTV training, but had not provided it to all those who required it. Had the appropriate instruction and training been provided, the workers would have had the knowledge and skills to operate the UTV in a safe manner and would have been aware of the requirements in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual and in the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.
• Inadequate supervision. The prime contractor did not identify the known or reasonably foreseeable hazards of operating a UTV without safe work procedures or specific training. The prime contractor also did not correct observed unsafe actions, such as not wearing seat belts or safety headgear while operating or riding in UTVs. The prime contractor did not provide adequate supervision of the operation of UTVs and thus did not ensure the health and safety of the workers performing work at the workplace.
• Lack of pre-use inspections. The prime contractor did not ensure that UTV operators completed pre-use inspections of the UTV. The prime contractor had not provided any information, instruction, or training regarding the safe use of a UTV. A pre-use inspection would likely have identified the UTV’s broken retention netting clip and the appropriate personal protective equipment required to operate the UTV according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Request the full report