Posted By Stuart Nagle
Although very sad and regrettable, I would have to state, in my opinion, that the accident was entirely preventable.
I would not use a sledge hammer to knock home a nail, and although an exagerated example, it would appear that the nature of the platform on the vehicle was unsuitable for the use to which it was put, particularly as it put persons at high risk of falling.
This type of van, used extensively in the courier market for transporting parcels because of it's large load carrying capacity, has a high roof. Which as stated was as least 2.3 metres above ground level. From personal experience (I have driven one of these) the roof area when one considers the platform attached (probably at least 100mm above the roof would have been (in my estimation) 2.4 to 2.5 metres above ground level. Anyone falling from this height could, as in this case, easily sustain a fatal injury.
It would appear evident that a flat-bed type vehicle would have been the preferred type, but in this case I expect that the small company had no other vehicles to use, only this one, and hence, made best use of it.
Unfortunately, this van, being of a less suitable type, has it would seem directly contributed to the accident and severity of injury. Whilst I am not saying its impossible to fall off a flatbed transit or similar vehicle, I think the likelihood of sustaining a fatal injury on a vehicle more suitable for this type of work would have been far less that falling from the top of the Mercedes van platform in question.
As a small company it is unlikely that the risks associated with this activity had been assessed, and although it was stated in the article that the van had a 'platform' and ladder to access it, this appears to simply increase the risks of high use, the area being easily accessable and thus inherently increasing the possiblity of an accident from falling off it.
Given the circumstances, had it been a large employer, I am sure the wheels of justice would have been turning to prosecute the employer in the courts. I can hear the cries of unsuitable work equipment ringing out along with failure to carry out a risk assessment, no safe system of work etc etc...
Simply because the person killed was one part of a two person company does not make the accident unpreventable. Although the court has sided with the families wishes, and the fact that there was no one to prosecute (except perhaps the partner).
Should not the Sherriff court have emphisised the fact that this accident was preventable, and what should have been considered, in the hope of preventing at least some other person thinking that to work like this is OK!!
Sorry Sherriff. I disagree with your finding that the accident was 'unpreventable'.
I am simply astounded...
Stuart