Accidents: A review of the year

The disappointing element of looking back at the accidents and incidents that were reported in 2007 is that they are very similar in detail to those reported in 2006. The following constitutes a small sample of workplace accidents that lead to prosecutions during 2007.

When analysing the details of these accidents, two main patterns are (again) identifiable.

Many of the accidents arise following:

• lack of suitable and sufficient risk assessments
• lack of suitable and sufficient training

Work at height and the dangers from falling objects continue to lead to fatal and serious injuries and there are many accidents arising from lack of control of vehicle movements.

It should be noted that the heading below are loose as many of the accidents described could be put under several of the headings.

back to top

Working at height and falls from height

There have been many prosecutions for issues involving falls from height over the last year.

A York based specialist Joinery Company was fined a total of 0f £10,000 (with £2124 costs) for breaches of S 3(1) of the HSWA (£8000) and Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (£2000) for tat had not been organised so as to avoid work at height. The work involved siting of a compressor at a height of about two metres. During the work, a fitter fell through a hole left by removal of extraction equipment and the compressor fell down on top of him. The fitter suffered a fractured pelvis and is unlikely to return to normal work. The HSE argued that the compressor could have been mounted at ground level, negating the need for work at height.

A roofer was almost killed inn a six metre fall through a fragile skylight while undertaking roof repairs. The HSE maintained that it may have been possible for the work to have been carried out from underneath, but that this was not considered fully by the company who occupied the premises or by the company contracted to do the work. Further to this, suitable edge protection and fall prevention and fall arrest systems could have been provided. The occupier was fined £60,000 (with costs of £17,837) for breaches of S3(1) HSWA while the contractor was fined £20,000 (with costs of £10,000) for breaches of S2(1) HSWA and Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 for failure to carry out suitable and sufficient assessments of the risk associated with the work.

back to top

Falling Objects

Following the collapse of scaffolding in a street in Edinburgh, a member of the public was severely injured. The accident occurred after a substantial section of the scaffolding from an L-shaped structure around the building was removed; leaving a substantial and virtually free standing straight section of scaffolding that was not adequately tied to the building. During high winds, the scaffolding fell across the road onto the pavement on both side of the road. It was fortunate that this occurred early in the morning on a public holiday and so few pedestrians and road users were present. The scaffolding company responsible for erecting and altering the scaffolding was fined nearly £50,000 while the construction company responsible for the site was fined £30,000.

A driver has killed by a falling steel beam during the unloading of the lorry he was driving. The beam, weighing nearly a tonne, was one of several that had not been secured to the vehicle properly and it fell when the driver started to loosen the straps on the load. The company that had retained the services of the delivery company that employed the driver was fined £30,000 for its failure to ensure the health and safety of non-employees, under S 3(1) HSWA, while the sole trader that employed the driver was fined £7,500 for its failure to protect the health and safety of its own employee (S2(1) HSWA). There were failures to adequately assess the risks arising from the handling of the loads and failures to implement suitable and sufficient methods of control.

back to top

Workplace Transport

A company behind one of the large retail chains was fined £120,000 (with costs of nearly £33,000) following the death of an employee following a collision with an articulated lorry as he crossed a transport yard. The yard had no provision for the segregation of pedestrians from moving vehicles and there was no designated route for lorry drivers to walk from the staff car park to the transport office, which was across the transport yard. Following the death and the issuing of an Improvement Notice, the company has now taken steps to ensure pedestrian safety, with the provision of a suitable, designated walkway, protection barriers and crossing points.

back to top

Machinery

An employee was killed while trying to clear the belt of a conveyor in a pit while the belt was still running. There was no guard on the machinery and there was no emergency stop control in reach. The employee died from multiple wounds received. The company was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay (four fifths of the) costs: £89,000. The Managing Director was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment after being found guilty of manslaughter. The area manager was also found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Subsequent enforcement action at other sites operated by the Company have lead to the company being served with fifteen Improvement and Prohibition Notices.

Lack of suitable machinery guarding and lack of other suitable control measures lead to serious injuries to the operator of a carpet beam machine in Rochdale. It is understood that the effective guard was not in place on the machine allowing the operator to become entangled in the revolving machine and that the trip wire designed to cut the power to the machine was not in its correct position at the front of the machine. The company were fine a modest £1600 (with £1324 in costs) for breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 – failing to guard the dangerous moving parts of the machine.

A plastic polymer manufacturer was fined £125,000 (with costs of about £6500) after an accident to an employee necessitated her having her arm amputated. The fine imposed included a provision for failure to assess the risks associated with the operation and cleaning of the machinery. It is understood that it was customary for the operators to run their hands over the screw mechanism as part of the cleaning process. The injury to the operator occurred when the screw mechanism caught up her glove and dragged her arm into the machine. The arm needed to be amputated below the elbow. The company was fined £100,000 for breaches of S 2(1) of HSAW and a further £25,000 for the lack of risk assessments (under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999)

back to top

Asbestos

Failure to manage asbestos at a girls’ school in Kettering lead to fines of £100,000 with costs of £45,000 for the companies involved in the upgrading of the electrical system at the school. The fined were against the electrical contractor and a subcontracted specialist asbestos removal company as well as the Managing Director of the asbestos removal company. It is understood that asbestos containing tiles were removed without appropriate care and without a suitable safe system of work in place. The tiles were removed and then thrown down to the floor, where many broke on impact. Independent monitoring confirmed that asbestos had been released into the air during the removal of the tiles. As a consequence, the school was closed for two terms, with 1000 pupils being relocated into temporary classrooms while the school was refitted. Further to this, substantial amounts of other materials and equipment (and pupils’ coursework) had to be disposed of, with a total cost of about £6,500,000, which is the subject of separate civil litigation.

back to top

Safe Systems of Work

A large supermarket chain was £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £17,500 following serious health and safety failures that placed one of its employees in a wheelchair. The accident arose from the lack of adequate separation of workers from moving vehicles (fork lift trucks) and from the lack of a suitable, safe system of work. The employee was stacking shelves and spent some of the time bending down with one of her legs trailing out behind her. On one of its passes, the forklift truck collided with the employee and the pallet run over her leg causing tremendous damage: removing skin and muscle and damaging the bone. The leg was saved, but the worker is not w registered wheelchair user.

back to top

Improvement Notices

A double glazing was fined £9000 by a Magistrates’ Court for ignoring an Improvement Notice relating to the maintenance of its electrical system. The Improvement Notice was issued in May and no action to comply with its provisions had been made by November.

back to top

Training

An untrained fork lift truck operator was left paralysed from the waist down when a heavy object fell from the forks, crushing the driver. The operator was asked to drive the fork lift truck and move the load, despite not being a trained fork lift driver. The operator moved the bin and then struggled to open the bin after moving it and the efforts to open the bin caused it to topple onto him. The company was fined £16,000 for failing to protect the health and safety of its own employees (S 2(1) HSWA) and a further £4,000 for failing to complete suitable and sufficient assessments of the risk to the operator (under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999).

back to top