Introduction Foster’s Abbotsford is an Australian company whose business interest is production of brew. Under the obligation of ensuring safety of employees, the company was sued in accordance to the Occupation Health and Safety law for a tragic incident that saw one of her employees perish. The report intends to elaborate on the facts surrounding the fatal incident and how the court proceedings were conducted up to the delivering of a ruling (WorkSafe 2008b). Company policies in relation to employees are important to enhance the safety of the workers and mitigate accidents. Constant review of company safety rules is important to curb life-threatening incidences that occur in line of duty. In case of a disaster, companies only lose revenue but workers are the worst affected as their lives are at stake during accidents. The Foster’s Abbotsford Company experienced a tragic incident in 2006 that attracted a fine of $1.125 million (Hannan 2011). The report looks into the details surrounding the incidents and subsequent safety issues. A description of the accident The firm’s negligence in conducting maintenance of company machines is largely to blame for the accident. In 2003, the company assessment report indicated minimal risks on one of the palletiser that was subsequently replaced in 2004. However, a senior electrician noted the depletion and risk nature of the B1B depalletiser. The company lagged in implementing a serious plan to address the issue. The B1B is the machine that caused the accident. In addition, the imprudent working culture in the company increases the risks of accidents occurring. This culture entails cleaning of machines without stopping the production machines to mitigate accidents. The firm adopted this culture to keep its production constant at all times. Managers routinely monitored the time of these machines (WorkSafe 2008a). Moreover, the dangerous areas on the depalletiser lacked alerting gadgets to aid in visibility and material that is audible enough to guide during the opening of the doors. Lastly, the company failed to comply with the established standards pertaining the use of machinery as envisaged in the Australia law provision. The company workers were supplied with safety booklets that were solely written in one language, English. The language barrier made hard the understanding of the advanced machine precautions. In accordance to this case, Mr. Huynh was unable to understand the scripts on safety. Mr. Huynh on the daily work routine was working near the B1B depalletiser machine when the accident occurred. According to the medical report, the worker sustained neck injuries. From the aforementioned report, the worker must have been compressed by heavy steel while conducting the cleaning of company reflector. A colleague at the work place found Huynh unconscious and was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed to internal injuries. According to the court’s judgment, Foster’s Company largely assisted the victim’s family during the grieving times until his final send off. The presence of the company’s executive during the burial, together with a large delegation from the company’s working pool postulated the gravity of the matter. An analysis of the contributing factors using the Hazard Management Process Companies c