*3.5. Agency*

The breakdown agent, which is the agen<sup>t</sup> immediately triggering the fatal injury incident, was most commonly human behavior (39%) (Table 4). Over half of child WRFI in those aged 0–4 years involved human behavior: particularly the child's own behavior, such as a being attracted to an agricultural pond but with, presumably, little cognitive awareness of the hazard presented by water; and preoccupied caregivers, such as working parents distracted by a work activity while supervising young children. The next most common breakdown agen<sup>t</sup> was vehicles (31%), particularly involving cars and utility vehicles. Vehicles were the most common trigger for fatal incidents involving children aged 5–9 years (41%) and those aged 10–14 years (32%). Environmental factors were most common amongs<sup>t</sup> children aged 10–14 years, frequently including sloping or rough ground surfaces which contributes to loss of control of a vehicle, such as a quad bike on a farm.


**Table 4.** Agency triggering the work-related incident (breakdown agent), among children (0–14 years), New Zealand, 1999–2014.

### *3.6. Narratives of Common Circumstances*

The majority of child WRFI incidents involved one of four narratives representing the most common and recurrent circumstances of fatal injury: 1) unsupervised young children on farms; 2) children operating a vehicle on farms; 3) children as vehicle passengers involved in a collision with a working vehicle; and 4) children hit as a pedestrian or cyclist by a working vehicle.

The first scenario includes distracted supervision of young children on farms. In this scenario, young children were often playing unsupervised in a secure area around a farm house or while accompanying

working parents on the farm. The young child was able to leave the "supervised area", a space often considered to be secure by the parent. The young child was attracted to a water feature, such as a stream or an unfenced agricultural pond, or towards animals, and was fatally injured. There was often a delay before the child is noticed missing, which points to the supervising parents having a high level of trust in the security of the space they place their child within and the di fficulties in maintaining focus on child safety while engaged in work activities.

Another common scenario was children operating adult-sized quad bikes on a farm for the common purpose of rounding up cows or other animals, or engaging in a farm-related recreational activity. In these situations, the child lost control of the quad bike while operating the quad bike. The cause of the loss of control was often due to an unexpected change in terrain or due to loss of traction on a sloping paddock. In all cases, the quad bike has flipped landing on top of the child, inflicting crush injuries. The child was generally unaccompanied by an adult and is found dead at the scene.

Working vehicles on public roads is also a common scenario involving child WRFI. The most common road-bystander scenarios involved children as passengers in a non-working vehicle where, in many cases, an adult driver made an error, such as a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre or crossing the dividing centre lines on a two-way road. The non-working vehicle invariably collided head on with an oncoming working vehicle, most commonly a heavy truck, resulting in substantial impact injuries in all occupants of the non-working vehicle. Another further common scenario involves children as pedestrians at intersections or crossing the road, or as a cyclist on public roads, being struck by a working vehicle. Often, the working vehicle in this scenario was a large truck where the child was located within the blind spot of the truck's mirrors resulting in the driver being unaware of the presence of the child prior to the incident.
