Health and Safety Failings – Two separate forklift incidents lead to prosecution

Two separate forklift incidents lead to prosecution

Key Facts:

• Prosecution follows two separate incidents involving reversing forklift trucks at a produce company.
• The investigating HSE officer said that ‘the risks were clear, but not enough was done to control them.’
• The company was fined £38,000, costs of £8,320, and a victim surcharge of £120.

The Case:

Two separate incidents involving reversing forklift trucks have left to the prosecution of a produce company.

The first incident occurred on 15 January 2014, when a warehouse team leader sustained multiple injuries after being trapped between two forklifts. He suffered multiple fractures to his right leg, hip and foot and had to undergo surgery to have metal pins and plates inserted into is leg. He also suffered nerve damage that left him with drop foot. He was unable to return to work for a year, before returning in an administrative role as he was no longer able to cope with the physical demands of his former role.

Following this incident, an investigation found that the restrictions on vehicle and pedestrian activity in the goods yard were minimal. There were no specified routes for pedestrians or vehicles – including forklifts – despite this being a busy and cluttered area. The supervision of yard activities was deemed to be inadequate.

An improvement notice was served, with improvements to be made by 29 April 2014.

However, 6 days before the compliance date, a 44-year-old employee was struck by a reversing forklift whilst carrying out material inspections. He suffered a lower-leg fracture.

The investigating HSE officer said that ‘the risks were clear, but not enough was done to control them.’

The case was heard on 18 March 2015, where the court heard that both incidents could have been prevented had there been better controls on forklifts and vehicle movements in the goods yard. The firm pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were fined £38,000, costs of £8,320, and a victim surcharge of £120.

What the HSE investigator had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Emma Page stated that:

“Prior to the two incidents, we identified evidence of near misses in the Chicksands goods yard that should have alerted MyFresh to the need to better manage the movement of people and forklift trucks.

The risks were clear, but not enough was done to control them and Mr Bottesch was seriously injured as a result.

The second incident happened while changes were belatedly being made to improve systems of work in order to comply with the Improvement Notice. However, the company had failed to identify quality control operatives as persons at risk. As a result they had not considered what controls might be necessary to separate these workers whilst they were carrying out their checks in the yard.

It was another incident that was entirely preventable.” 

What the law states:

Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 states:

It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 states

It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Further information on forklift safety can be found here.

Find details of our safety training courses here

Follow us on twitter: @safety_matters

Don’t hesitate to get in touch if we can help you find a solution to your safety matters.