The following case in my opinion raises some major concerns for all Health & Safety professionals and businesses alike over the principle of reasonably practicable. I apologise in advance for the length of this posting but given the principles that are raised I feel that the level of detail is necessary. During a visit to a historic Warwick monument that is 900 years old, a person died following a trip over a 39cm high parapet wall which resulted in a 4.3 metres fall into the moat below. I believe that this was a tragic accident and I have the upmost sympathy for his family and friends. As a result of the death the company that owns the site have been successfully prosecuted and given a £495,000 penalty- £350,000 fine (11.5% of the operator’s recent pre-tax profits) and £145,000 in costs. The operator was charged with breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (duty to conduct undertakings in a manner which does not expose visitors to risks to their health and safety) and Regulation 5(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (failing to make adequate arrangements for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of any necessary preventative measures). The risk of a fall had been raised in 1995 as part of a public Entertainment Licence condition and again in 2003 in a general risk assessment. The Prosecutor in the case said “we do not have to prove the failures led to or caused the accident, only that there was a failure to protect the safety of people going to and from the castle” Between 1978 and 2007 (when the fatality occurred) over 20 Million people visited the site with no other events. In light of the above and while I fully accept that one untimely death is one too many I have the following issues that I would welcome the opinions on from my fellow professionals: 1. Based on the above case does this mean that every area where any person could trip and subsequently die should be protected by barriers? 2 Has the overall concept of reasonably practicable shifted? 3.Has the concept of people taking responsibility for their own health and safety now disappeared?

dsb Not overly familiar with this case but much like R v Porter, it seems a harsh case to prosecute (unless you were family or friend of the deceased) but unlike the aforementioned the CA saw good sense to overturn the previous guilty verdict. 1. No, each case will be judged on its own material facts. 2. The 'reasonably practicable' rubric has always been a moving a target, arguably more so than in the past. 3. The concept of people taking responsibility for their own health and safety sadly disappeared a long time ago.

Is this not a case of a hazard been previously identified and nothing being done to minimise the risk such as a simply warning sign. I am of the school that when you identify a hazard you do something about it not carry out severity x likelihood calculation that does not exist in the real world.

Totally agree with you Ray - mind you there is only a very small warning on a packet of cigarettes

Jake Well worth a visit - A listed Medieval Castle

We all don't know the layout, but this risk was highlighted twice, and on a RA, so why were no corrective actions put in place, then maybe this incident would have been prevented

As some responders have already stated, it's very difficult or even inappropriate for us to comment without proper information, including what happened to whom, seeing photos of the location involved, how accessible it was to visitors and its nature in relation to other parts of the building accessed to visitors. Does anyone know if some sort of common standard of safeguarding for visitors has been formulated by operators of historic buildings to try and balance 1) the need to protect visitors against 2) aesthetic and historical considerations at such sites? For example, at some of the old castles I've visited over the years I recall seeing single guardrails added to the low parapets of tower tops and similar elevated locations. Though such rails may provide reasonable protection for adults, children without adequate supervision could fall through the gaps beneath the rails. If accidents to children have ocurred at such locations, they may well have resulted in court cases which included arguments about the extent to which parents should supervise/keep hold of their kids in such locations. Does anyone know of such cases? Also it seems that different standards apply to different places in the UK. Over the years I've visited York and sometimes enjoyed a walk along the medieval walls which still surround much of that city. As other forum users who have done the same walk will have noticed, there are some elevated sections of the walkway which have no railing or any other feature whatsoever to prevent people on the paved walkway from falling over the city-side edge and down a significant distance, probably some 10 to 15 feet or more, onto gardens, lawns or buildings below. Apart from having access gates which are locked at night, the walkway is open and free for any member of the public to use. I have no knowledge of any accidents and injuries having occurred at the unprotected edges and mention the York walls mainly for the information of forum users reading this topic. I know that Chester has similar historic walls but haven't visited them for many years and so don't know if any sections of them have unprotected edges like those at York.

More info..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...ry-warwickshire-17839398

Have to agree with Ray at post #3. The bridge over the moat is 10.5 feet wide and it seems the person stumbled near the edge and fell over. The local councils EHO took the view that "Mr Townley's fatal accident was foreseeable and would not have occurred if Merlin had undertaken a 'suitable and sufficient' risk assessment which, in the council's view, would have identified the need to provide barriers to the sides of the bridge". Given that there had been no previous incidents how forseeable was it really? Unfortunately it always is after the event!

This is the problem with S&S RA when you apply hindsight its not going to be S&S Maybe we need to return to the days of what a reasonable man on a Clapham Omnibus might think?

This is the problem with S&S RA when you apply hindsight its not going to be S&S Maybe we need to return to the days of what a reasonable man on a Clapham Omnibus might think?

This was tried on the coast last year :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-15878361

flysafe's above post reminds me of what is an acceptable/tolerable risk? Unfortunately the concept of a risk is subject to the vagaries of subjectivity. More and more as a society we seem to go down the path of removing all risks, regardless of the benefits (tangible or aesthetic) in order to justify an element of control, or in the aftermath of a tragic event. Rather than accepting that things can go wrong even if the odds appear to be millions to one. I have just returned from Crete where it was obvious from empirical evidence that the people are not restricted with bureaucratic measures as we are in the UK - despite being in the EU. Cretans riding motor bikes without crash helmets was a familiar sight as was cyclists without headgear. It was actually quite refreshing in a perverse kind of way. When I hang my hard hat up I will be seeking an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean me thinks.

Is there a legal requirement to wear headgear when cycling? I'm pretty sure that is there no legal requirement for the either the wearing of hi-viz clothing or head protection in Scotland.

I'd like to reply in particular to the original post by dsb, and to the later post by Graham Bullough. Forgive the length of this post, but important issues have been raised. In a discussion about a particular court case, there is often a lack of detailed information. I have followed the media reporting of this case and any subsequent discussion I could find with great interest. Perhaps the most informative case summary can be found here - http://theehp.com/2012/0...-accident-case-summary/. The article was written by Daniel Mulryan, who I believe was a witness in the case and is an EHO for Warwick DC. It appears to me to be a fair summary. There is also a link to some photos on Flickr that help us to understand the location. Graham asks whether there is a common standard of safeguarding for visitors to such buildings and structures. In my somewhat biased view as a former member, I would refer people to the work of the Visitor Safety in the Countryside Group (VSCG) (www.vscg.co.uk). This Group has been in existence since the mid 1990's, and its membership includes English Heritage, the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland, and Historic Scotland among many others. Its meetings are usually attended by a representative from HSE's Leisure and Entertainment Sector. The Group has published a guidance booklet, endorsed by HSE, called "Managing Visitor Safety in the Countryside", although its content is also relevant to historic buildings. The website contains practical guidance, a number of case studies and relevant case summaries. The need to find an appropriate balance between safety, conservation and access has been a primary concern of the group since its existence, and the issue of unprotected or partially protected drops has been discussed on many occasions. There is no single or simple solution, as Graham has observed at his visit to York City Walls, and each situation needs to take account of local factors through the risk assessment process. Because this needs to take account of the importance of our historic heritage, the landscape or the quality of the visitor experience, then ideas about risk-benefit assessment promoted by the play sector and recently in NTSG guidance on tree safety management are relevant. I believe that the VSCG and HSE are considering the implications of the Warwick Castle case. Incidentally, at York City Walls, there have in my memory always been barriers at points of greater risk, where the wall crosses above a road. My impression is also that additional barriered sections have been installed in recent years. dsb asks 3 questions: 1. Based on the above case does this mean that every area where any person could trip and subsequently die should be protected by barriers? Not in my opinion. To provide universal barrier protection would necessitate massive investment and impact on our historic buildings, and/or massive restrictions in public access. It would drastically devalue the visitor experience - most people visit these places to experience a sense of what they were like in historic times and modern safety precautions can detract from that. The impact on sites such as Tintagel (EH), Fountains Abbey (NT), Stirling Castle (Historic Scotland) would be enormous. 2 Has the overall concept of reasonably practicable shifted? I don't think so. This is just one case. The key thing from now on is whether the enforcing authorities change their approach. Possibly in this case, the lack of a specific risk assessment of the bridge was an important factor. 3.Has the concept of people taking responsibility for their own health and safety now disappeared? No, I don't think so. The work of the VSCG in particular emphasises the importance of personal responsibility in an appropriate balance between management intervention and user self-reliance.

Many thanks to Wood28983 for the link to the very pertinent VSCG website page about managing risk from drops. (I knew of VSCG's existence but couldn't remember its title and also wrongly assumed that it focused on risks involving natural features such as cliffs.) It's interesting to see that the locations mentioned and illustrated as examples on the webpage include York City Walls and The Cobb at Lyme Regis, the latter being the subject of considerable discussion in the past on this forum. The photo showing an unprotected drop somewhere along York City Walls is accompanied by the following text: "Society accepts the existence of unprotected drops in public places. Traditionally people have been free to walk alongside unfenced quaysides, lock sides, city walls and cliff tops." It's a very sweeping statement in its reference to "society" and inevitably prompts some debate as to what is meant by "society". I guess that most people if casually asked for a quick reply would tend to say that free access to unfenced drops at natural and man-made features should be allowed. However, those who suffer injury themselves or lose relatives, friends or even pets through falls at such drops will understandably think very differently. In my own opinion I think the VSCG guidance provides a very sensible and practical balance regarding drops. It's partly based on a view that individuals should, where appropriate, take some responsibility for their own safety rather than automatically assume that others somehow have such responsibility. (It's something I've tried to follow myself - and encourage others to do - over many years as a mountaineer and also an explorer of old mines and quarries, especially slate workings which have precipitous drops) While discussing unfenced drops it might be relevant to observe that 'society' seems to accept the absence of barriers between pavements and the vast majority of roadways even though moving vehicles pose a very high risk of injury or death to pedestrians who walk onto roadways or are hit by vehicles which transgress from a roadway onto a pavement. The latter can happen through poor driving, e.g. going too fast at a road bend, or unexpected driver incapacity e.g. a heart attack. The main measure about walking onto a roadway consists of parent and others training children to follow the UK's Green Cross Code as soon as they are old enough to understand it, i.e. encouraging them to take responsibility for their own safety regarding proximity to roads!

I am glad that the VSCG has been mentioned in this discussion. I think it is really relevant. The VSCG guidelines that risk control measures should be proporationate to how busy/urban an attraction is makes total sense. Using this basic principle, Warwick castle is a busy commercialised attraction - therefore it seems reasonable to expect additional fall protection - unlike some of the more remote ruins that have been mentioned in this thread.

The Flickr photos accessed through the website quoted by Mark Daniels at #29 certainly help those of us unfamiliar with the bridge involved at Warwick Castle to get a good idea of its nature including the low height of its parapet walls. Also, I guess that some forum users will share my thought that if no incident, especially one with a tragic outcome, had occurred at the bridge, it is quite possible that its parapets might have remained without any safety additions, no prosecution along with adverse publicity and hefty fine and costs would have ocurred, and none of us would have read/heard about Warwick Castle in this context!

Playing Devils Advocate and in light of the last few postings, what chance of the castle's owner lodging a successful appeal citing York and Docks for example as tourist areas that are unprotected? Would be an interesting piece of case law to follow. As an aside I'm a local to the castle, 3 miles away, and knew the area concerned 15 years ago when the grounds were immaculately kept and the moat was tree free. It was obvious that there was a drop and you stayed clear of the edge. I visited again last year (expensive just to visit the grounds only) and the trees that have grown do make it look deceptively shallow from 'land ' side but past the tree towards the castle walls it becomes obvious that there is such a drop. This is and ancient monument, installing metal barriers would spoil the effect, what ever happened to the promotional common sense and allow them to install period looking rope barriers? Whilst they may not prevent children from hanging off them they would prevent and adult toppling over the edge. Badger

JJ, isn't a public road a man-made (or woman-made) creation whichever the case may be? Isn't a railway platform? With regards to a cliff edge, yes it's a natural creation, however, the footpath etched out to provide an access for the public to walk alongside, is not! Please don't assume I'd like to see all places that pose a danger with edge protection. Not at all! I'm not risk averse. Sensible risk management I preach and practise. Every location, environment should be considered on its own merits (hence my reference to Padstow). I agree to a point that we all need to define and accept our own risks in the natural environment. This however cannot apply evenly across the spectrum of human kind.