Fire Safety – Health and Safety News

Swine Flu – find out more.

First prosecution for corporate manslaughter charge under the new act.

Landlords must have a gas safety check carried out – read about Gas Safety Changes.

Forthcoming Legislation – At the end of this year, the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 will come into force.

New Health Safety Law Poster – a grace period of five years given.

The landlord of a residential home has been fined £20,000 for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order…

Poor storage kills apprentice, Director fined £10,000

Category: Housekeeping

A 17 year old apprentice was employed at a joinery workshop when the accident took place. Prior to the accident, the apprentice had been removing the boards, which were stacked on top of a bench held in place by a bracket. After safely removing one board, another nine fell onto of him, fatally striking him on the head.

It is believed that the boards fell because the bracket that was holding them was not strong enough to support their combined weight. However due to no witnesses being in the area at the time, the precise details of the accident are not available. When the HSE investigated the accident, it was discovered that the bracket had only been in situ for a week.

The managing director of the company, was prosecuted for breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. He was also prosecuted under s.37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He pleaded guilty to both counts. He was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £2,500 costs with no further action taken against the company.

The managing director was personally liable in this case due to him designing and purchasing the failed bracket. The HSE stated that the storage system designed by the managing director was ill-conceived and posed an inherent risk to users. Due to this the HSE decided to take action against the managing director personally, rather then the company.

back to top

Crushed finger costs £53,000 in fines

Category: Machinery

A firm has been fined £53,000 (including costs) following an accident which saw an engineer’s index finger crushed and subsequently amputated.

A maintenance engineer decided to take a look at a piece of machinery he planned to work on, unfortunately he slipped and fell into the machinery trapping his hand between two moving parts. The engineer was unable to free his hand and, as the machine was still switched on, the equipment dragged him into it’s mechanism crushing his index finger. His injuries were so severe he had to have an operation to amputate the remains of his finger above the second knuckle.

The HSE investigated this case. In doing so it identified that the engineer’s employer, did not have safe work systems in place for maintaining machinery. The investigation identified that the machine which caused the accident had inadequate guarding in place. The company was prosecuted for breaching the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, for failing to complete suitable and sufficient risk assessments. It was also fined for breaching the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER). The fines for the offences totaled £40,000 and was ordered to pay £13,000 in costs.

back to top

Landlord jailed for fire safety offences

Category: Fire safety, Landlord

A landlord has been sent to jail for failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO). Mr P received a four-month sentence after pleading guilty to eight FSO offences. In addition to his sentence, his company was also fined £21,000.

The London Fire Brigade (LFB) took the decision to prosecute Mr P following a fatal fire at one of his properties. The investigation found that Mr P had not addressed his duties under the FSO, which led to the death of an individual.

The investigating officers found that neither Mr P nor his company had completed a fire risk assessment. Appropriate fire safety arrangements were not in place; no smoke detection devices were fitted, nor were any emergency signs. In addition, routes which may have been used as a fire escape were blocked.

back to top

Failure to plan the movement of a load

Category: Manual Handling, Machinery

An oven is heavy, and a commercial one very heavy. An obvious statement. However, the fact that a steam oven, fresh off the production line, might be very heavy and should be moved with care seemed to pass a number of employees by. They came up with a ridiculous solution to moving the oven which, unsurprisingly, fell from the equipment it was being transported on, smashing an employee’s feet on the way down.

Using absolutely no common sense whatsoever, the employees decided that it would be sensible to move a brand-new steam-heated “DMT” liquid oven – weighing in at over 800kg – using two pallet trucks. It didn’t work: and the oven fell off. Unfortunately for one of the employees involved, it fell on to his foot causing major injuries. He suffered three breakages to his left foot and five dislocated toes.

The investigating officer was polite when he stated that no risk assessment had been conducted for the movement of ovens.

The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,377 after pleading guilty to breaching s.2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The investigating officer stated that the company had been prosecuted because no risk assessment had been conducted for the movement of ovens in the premises.

back to top