Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 11 December 2004 21:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By James K Folks, As ever I am turning to this forum for advice. At a recent meeting of all of our site managers an issue arose whereby comlpaints were voiced concerning the use of our machinery ( IE MEWPs, Teleporters, dumpers etc ) by sub-contractors. The concerns raised were relating to accidents while they were "borrowing" our equipment and who woud be liable. ( Either with or without permission ) I have written to our insurance company and am waiting their reply. I just thought that someone may hae come across this issue before. Merry Christmas all, Jim
Admin  
#2 Posted : 12 December 2004 13:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By P Williams not enough info to give a definitive answer. I would need to know the exact details of a particular incident to give an accurate account of who the dutyholders are. For example was the incident due to poor maintenance, driver factors, who was at risk etc etc
Admin  
#3 Posted : 12 December 2004 13:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By James K There was no accident or incident..I was asked by the site managers where the liability lies ni the event of an accident/incident. As I have said I have already saught advice from our insurance team but I just tought that on hands advice from the frum would also be helpful. "Is it good practice to loan machines out when requested" and " Can it bite one in the backside when things go wrong"? JIM
Admin  
#4 Posted : 12 December 2004 16:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Struan In the real world, this is common. However, these days competence of use and authorisation for use plays a big part as well as ownership of a preventative and routine maintenance scheme. It'all risk orientated and really not worth taking the risk of lending out plant, as, on the basis of your particular case,I would guess that you own all the risk if something goes t-ts up.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 12 December 2004 19:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle James. Firstly, it is my opinion that 'at law' the employer is responsible for all persons they employ on their sites, irrespective of whether they are directly employed or contractors (see regina -v- associated octel). In essence therefore any accident on your site involving direct employees or contractors may have ramifications for your company. With this in mind, you seek to ameliorate accidents by ensuring that contractors you employ are trained and competent contractors, capable of safely undertaking the works. In respect of tool or plant use, you may choose to either permit this, or refuse and incur any likely price increase in the tender etc )a posisble reason for considering contractor use of the employers equipment). If the employer agrees, he has a duty of care to the contractor to ensure that the tools, plant and equipment are tested, calibrated, and maintained as fit for purpose and safe to be used - as he would with his directly employed staff, and further the contractor has a duty to see that the same are used correctly in accordance with the employers direction ect for safe operation. The employer would not permit his directly employed staff to use the same without training and being experienced/competent in is use, and nor should the employer accept less from the contractor. In such situations, from experience, it is not unusual for tools, plant and equipment to get damaged, as ownership tends to go hand in hand with care of use, and as the contractors staff will know, the equipment is not theirs, so care taken in use may be less than if it was!! Accidents on the equipment will be treated as normal, i.e. the employer will be held liable and the contractor also. The degree of liability will vary upon the circumstances, the hazard, risk, training and competence, safe systems of work and supervision ect - as is usually the norm, along with any consequential negligence by the operator accounted for in any court case or civil action that follows!! If you are to manage the works in this manner, there must be controls in place to ensure only trained and competent users are permited access to and use of the equipment, it is used correctly, there are safe systems of work that are followed, logs to indicate who was using the equipment, the equipment is maintained and suitable levels of supervision given to ensure all the above is actually managed and adhered to. If you can do all of this, instead of just letting the contractor get on with it, as is often the case, you should be OK, but as they say...accidents happen, so ensure you have the evidence to prove that all was done SFARP to prevent it!! Stuart
Admin  
#6 Posted : 12 December 2004 21:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie The "Outside Contractors" of the last safety policy document I compiled read "Contractors are not permitted to use any company plant, machinery or other facility without the written permission of their official company contact. Such permission will not normally be given" That included the canteen, toilets and even the car park unless an area was officially handed over. Not always feasible I know, but that is the baseline from which you should always start. I have always said that contractors arefrequently the weakest part of any H&S chain, and must be strictly controlled Laurie
Admin  
#7 Posted : 13 December 2004 00:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Eden In the make believe world contractors should not be able to use your plant (mewps, flt etc) as your employees do not leave the keys in them, do they !!! Your site managers should make sure all your plant operators remove the keys to prevent others using your equipment, easier said than done.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 13 December 2004 08:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Allan St.John Holt James, I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned R. v Mara, which is the decided case on contractors using host equipment. I won't go into long details because it is easily referenced, but basically the host company was prosecuted as well as the contractor when an electrical fault resulted in the death of a contractor's employee. I think you should specify in your contracts that your equipment will not be available to contractors unless specific written permission is given. Allan
Admin  
#9 Posted : 13 December 2004 10:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Daniels If you search for R v Mara on Google and select the first hit you will find a very interesting case from Canada where a tavern owner was prosecuted for permitting indecent acts to take place on his premises between exotic dancers and the patrons. I don't suppose this is the case Allan was refering to so I will carry on searching.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 13 December 2004 10:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Allan St.John Holt What Lee says is true! There's a load of stuff about a Canadian case involving lap dancers doing things they shouldn't have been doing - which is a darn sight more interesting than Mr Mara and his cleaning contract. In fact there's precious little about Mr Mara other than that the basis of his appeal was to do with whether or not he was carrying out an undertaking, I recall. Essentially, what happened was that Mara had been hired to do cleaning out of hours in a warehouse, and in time his contract was reduced by the owner who had staff that could do it during the evenings in the week. They used Mara's equipment, stored there, which turned out to be faulty electrically and one of the workers in the warehouse was fatally electrocuted. In the prosecution both Mara and the warehouse owner were fined. I think Mara's appeal was on the basis that there was no arrangement to borrow his gear and therefore he was not carrying out an undertaking at the material time. All this is from memory and others may track down a reference that corrects me on the details - so don't quote me! Allan
Admin  
#11 Posted : 13 December 2004 11:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Craven There was a discussion thread titled "Regina V Mara" posted on 30 July 2004, which may provide further info? I would agree with the view that contractors should provide their own equipment at all times and not allowed to use or "borrow" anything owned by us! We had a case recently where the IT contractor (former in-house IT Dept - "outsourced") wanted to borrow some ladders to access some IT network cupboards. They didn't want to buy and use their own ladders because "we only need them on a handful of occasions and you sited the equipment in awkward locations - not us". Facilities Management actually bought them a ladder in order to end the stalemate!! Mike Mike
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.