Prosecutions

£365,000 fine for a company and contractor after worker killed by forklift truck 10/08/2009 Two companies have been prosecuted in relation to an incident at a water treatment works in September 2003. The two companies were sentenced at Manchester Crown Court late June 2009.

The deceased man’s employer pleaded guilty to an offence under health and safety legislation. The company was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £24,323.

The principal contractor for the project, also pleaded guilty. It was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £41,073.

The deceased was operating a telescopic fork lift truck at the time of his death, the vehicle’s off-side cab window normally acted as a guard, but had been damaged during a lifting operation a number of weeks before the incident. At that time, the cab window was entirely missing.

Although there were no witnesses to the incident, the most likely explanation is that the deceased leant out of the cab window and came into contact with the joystick, bringing the arm of the forklift truck down onto him.

The company was charged with failing to ensure the safety of employees, under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, while involved in operating and working with, or in the vicinity of, a telescopic forklift truck.

The contractor was charged with failing to ensure the safety of people not in its employment, under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The court found that the contractor had failed to ensure that the company prepared suitable and sufficient risk assessments in relation to its telescopic forklift truck operations. It also found that the contractor had failed to adequately monitor the company and, as a result, had failed to identify the broken window and ensure it was replaced.

HSE Inspector Warren Pennington said: "This incident would have been entirely avoidable if the proper health and safety procedures had been followed.

"The company did not have a system in place for formal regular inspections of the plant. As a result, the company failed to maintain the cab window which could have saved this man’s life."

"The contractor on the site, also had a duty to supervise its subcontractors properly. The company had a comprehensive management system but it was not implemented and, as a result, something as simple as a missing window was not spotted."

News Articles Search