Fatal Rock Truck Incident — Why Signallers Cannot Multitask
Case Study · Traffic Control / Signaller Duties
A construction worker was fatally struck by a rock truck when the designated signaller turned away to perform other duties. This case demonstrates why traffic control personnel must maintain full attention on moving equipment—before, during, and after signaling operations.
🟦 WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
A construction crew was building a new driveway at a commercial project in Caledon, Ontario. The foreman, Alfredo Piluso, was acting as the signaller for a rock truck while simultaneously supervising other work on site.
The rock truck was being loaded with soil by an excavator. When the truck was full, the operator returned to the cab to move the load. Mr. Piluso signaled the operator to proceed, then immediately turned away to take grade measurements where the excavator was actively digging.
A worker was standing in the rock truck’s path of travel, but the operator’s view was obstructed and he could not see the worker. Mr. Piluso only turned his attention back to the rock truck when he heard the air brake release—but by then, it was too late to stop the truck. The worker was fatally struck.
Key Facts (Case Box)
- A worker was fatally injured by a rock truck at a construction site in Caledon, Ontario.
- Alfredo Piluso, a foreman with Road-Ex Contracting Ltd., was acting as signaller for the rock truck.
- Mr. Piluso signaled the rock truck to move, then immediately turned away to perform grade measurements.
- A worker was standing in the truck’s path of travel, but the operator’s view was obstructed.
- By the time Mr. Piluso heard the air brake release and turned back, it was too late to stop the truck.
- Mr. Piluso was convicted and fined $20,000 for performing other work while acting as a signaller, contrary to Ontario Regulation 213/91 and the OHSA.
🟧 WHAT DID THE COURT SAY?
Legal Duty Under OHSA (Duty Box)
The court focused on the worker’s duty under Ontario Regulation 213/91 (Construction Projects) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
Section 104(3) of O. Reg. 213/91 states:
“A signaller shall not give signals unless the signaller’s sole responsibility at the time is signalling.”
Section 106(1) of O. Reg. 213/91 states:
“No vehicle or powered mobile equipment shall be moved where its movement might endanger the safety of any worker unless the vehicle or equipment is attended by a signaller.”
Section 28(1)(a) of the OHSA requires:
“A worker shall work in compliance with the provisions of this Act and the regulations.”
Basically, what this means is simple: if you’re the signaller, that’s all you do. You don’t take measurements. You don’t supervise other tasks. You don’t check your phone. Your eyes stay on the equipment you’re signaling—from the moment you give the signal until the movement is complete.
The court found that:
- Mr. Piluso gave the signal to proceed, then immediately turned away to perform grade measurements.
- This violated the “sole responsibility” requirement under section 104(3).
- By dividing his attention, Mr. Piluso created a gap in the safety system that was supposed to protect workers in the area.
- A worker was standing in the path of travel, but because Mr. Piluso was not watching, he could not intervene when the truck began to move.
In the court’s view, this was not a momentary distraction—it was a fundamental failure to understand the role of a signaller. The conviction and $20,000 fine reflect how seriously the court takes this breach of duty.
🟦 PRACTICAL ACTIONS FOR SUPERVISORS
(Checklist block)
Supervisors assign signallers and verify they understand their duties. Here’s what the court expects you to do:
Keep asking: “If the signaller looks away for even 10 seconds, who gets hurt?”
- Assign a dedicated signaller whenever equipment movement could endanger workers..
- Verify that the signaller understands their role: signal, watch, stop if needed—nothing else.
- Do not assign other duties to a signaller while they are actively signalling.
- Stop work if you observe a signaller multitasking, taking measurements, using a phone, or performing any other task.
- Document your signaller assignments and ensure relief personnel are available if signalling duties will be extended.
🟩 PRACTICAL ACTIONS FOR EMPLOYERS
(Checklist block)
Employers must build the system that ensures signallers can perform their role without distraction. That system must include:
- A written traffic control plan that identifies when signallers are required.
- Clear procedures stating that signallers have one job only: directing equipment safely.
- Training that explains the “sole responsibility” requirement under section 104(3).
- Supervision to verify that signallers are not being assigned conflicting duties.
- Relief schedules so signallers are not overburdened or forced to multitask due to understaffing.
- Immediate corrective action when a signaller is observed performing other work.
Employers must demonstrate due diligence, meaning documented, proactive efforts to prevent dual-tasking by signallers. This case shows that “we thought he knew” is not a defense—the rule is clear, and violations are foreseeable.
🟦 HOW TO USE THIS CASE IN YOUR WORKPLACE
This case is a valuable safety conversation starter. You can use it during:
- Supervisor meetings
- Toolbox talks
- Pre-job briefings
- Joint Health & Safety Committee meetings
Encourage your team to walk the site after reviewing this case. Ask:
- “Do we assign signallers when equipment is moving near workers?”
- “Are our signallers doing anything other than signalling?”
- “Do we have relief signallers available, or are workers multitasking because we’re short-staffed?”
This case reinforces a simple message: a signaller’s only job is to signal—and any deviation from that rule puts lives at risk.
🟦 CASE SUMMARY (Quick Reference Box)
Hazard Type:
Traffic control · Moving equipment · Obstructed view · Signaller duties
Root Cause:
Signaller performed other work (grade measurements) while actively signalling a rock truck.
Immediate Cause:
Worker standing in path of travel; operator’s view obstructed; signaller not watching to intervene.
System Gaps Identified:
- No clear procedure prohibiting dual-tasking by signallers
- Foreman assigned himself conflicting duties (supervising and signalling)
- No relief signaller available to allow dedicated attention
- Traffic control plan did not address “sole responsibility” requirement
Key Teaching Point:
Section 104(3) of O. Reg. 213/91 is absolute: a signaller’s sole responsibility at the time must be signalling. If you’re the signaller, you watch the equipment until movement is complete. No measurements. No phone calls. No other tasks.
Conviction Details:
- Who: Alfredo Piluso, foreman, Road-Ex Contracting Ltd.
- When: Offence June 1, 2022; Conviction May 1, 2024
- Where: 261 Abbotside Way, Caledon, Ontario
- Penalty: $20,000 fine + 25% victim surcharge
- Court: Ontario Court of Justice, Orangeville; Justice James Chaffe
[case_study_buttons pdf_url=”https://blog.worksafesounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Rock_Truck_Signaller_Case_Study.pdf”]
