However, the company believes the power lines were not live and the appropriate safety equipment, which Mr Cheney's family believes he should have been given, was not required. The employer also claims Danny Cheney attended numerous training sessions and safety meetings on similar projects, which covered the type of work he was doing the day tragedy struck. Mr Cheney's colleague Macquin Parungao, who was in the cherry picker basket with him, received four electric shocks as he tried to save his fellow worker. A coroner found Mr Cheney died because his employer had not adequately trained him in his new role, following his recent promotion and transfer to a new project the month before he died. Coroner Kevin Priestly ruled in 2018 that Mr Cheney had many responsibilities on the day he died, but made little or no preparation for the task ahead, which included not completing a risk assessment.

The coroner said Mr Cheney had no formal qualifications or training in live transmission line work and did not ensure his team had the appropriate safety equipment with them. Mr Priestly also attacked two investigations into the incident, one of which was conducted by John Holland Group (JHG). He wrote in his report the inquiries did not fully explore why Mr Cheney did not complete a risk assessment and also failed to identify the victim's knowledge gap. "I do recall that after I read the initial report from Comcare and the more detailed final Comcare report, I understood both reports essentially agreed with the findings in the JHG report," he said. I recall feeling very disappointed about this because it appeared to me that the Comcare reports had essentially copied the JHG report and had not been independently or properly investigated. Queensland coroner Kevin Priestly

Mr Cheney's widow Aubrey Steele, 37, and stepdaughter Madelyn Murphy, 14, both now live in the US, but will travel to Brisbane when the case returns to court this year. Kevin Cheney claimed in his supporting statement JHG did not tell him of his son's death; he was told by his other son, Michael. According to the statement of claim filed by Mr Cheney's family: "The accident occurred because the conductors were not effectively earthed, the conductors were earthed to the Elevated Work Platform (EWP) rather than being earthed to the tower. "No voltage detection equipment was provided to the team to check the effectiveness of the earthing of the conductors, the defendant failed to implement any, or any effective, safe system of work in respect of the earthing of the conductors.

"The deceased received no, or no adequate, training from the defendant about performing live transmission work, performing live transmission work from an EWP, applying temporary earthing, the difference between earthing and bonding or the safe systems of work. "A reasonable employer would have instructed the team it was mandated the conductors be earthed to the tower, provide such voltage detection equipment and instructed the team it was mandated in use, undertaken the training of the deceased and implemented the safe system of work. By reason of the matters pleaded above, the defendant breached the duty. If the defendant had done the things pleaded, or any of them, the accident would not have occurred because the deceased’s exposure to live electricity would have been obviated or alternatively minimised. Danny Cheney's family Defence lawyer Melanie Quixley, acting for JHG, said having read the investigations and reports into Mr Cheney's death, she believed the power lines were not live when the accident happened. She instead believed the electrical current was somehow introduced into the non-energised lines.

"As to the allegation in the statement of claim that the respondent failed to provide voltage detection equipment to check the effectiveness of the earthing of the conductors, the Activity Method Statement [detailed safety plan] does not refer to using voltage detection equipment at any point in the process," Ms Quixley wrote in her response to the victim's family's claims. Mr Cheney and his colleagues working on the power lines the day tragedy struck. "Based on my review of the JH report and its attachments, it was apparent to me that the deceased’s work crew did not have with them and were not directed in the AMS to use voltage detection equipment." Ms Quixley also argued Mr Cheney would have likely been involved in putting together safety plans. "The position description indicates to me that the deceased was in a supervisory role for the majority of his time on three projects," she wrote.

"In performing the tasks set out in the position description the deceased would likely have been involved in the development of, or at the very least signed on to, safety documents such as Safe Work Method Statements or other safe work procedure assessments. "[In addition], conducted daily pre-start meetings where he has potentially identified the procedures to be followed, identified the hazards and control measures, identified the equipment for the work and allocated its collection, completed hazard boards, conducted incident and near miss investigations [and] undertaken weekly reviews of Safe Work Method Statements." Despite extensive searches from JHG lawyers and employees for Mr Cheney's safety and training records during his time on several different projects, not all of the documents were found. The records that were recovered showed that, in the year before he died, Mr Cheney had participated in a conductor trolley stringing trial with a safety inspector overseeing as well as attended safety briefings on earthing the cherry picker he was in and the importance of using hot sticks and gloves. Mr Cheney was listed as the foreman at a safety meeting on November 21, 2009, that focused on: