Posted By Richard Spencer I would like to share with you the importance of being a Chartered Member of IOSH. A few days ago I was asked to give evidence in a case where a person in a common law claim, was bringing an action against another for negligence, due to the severe injury sustained to the spine, rendering the plaintiff paraplegic. As a result of a change in the law, the judiciary takes a very close look at the Expert Witness and their qualification, experience and training in respect of the incident under examination. Indeed, asking what subjects were taken in the degree, how long was the course of study and what was the topic of my Thesis – in this case biomechanics/ergonomics etc… I had written the investigation report some 3 years ago and at that time had not been a Chartered Safety & Health Practitioner, therefore neither the report nor my CV at the time reflected this information or information in respect of my Professional Membership of the American Society of Safety Engineers, tended to the court. The Defendant’s experts (both Engineers with no OHS qualification) had merely referred to the traditional areas in these cases of trips and falls and therefore could not add to the dynamics of the fall event other than to confirm the COF values of the floor 8 and 39 months consecutively following the fall event. On the first day of evidence I was duly grilled as to my expertise to give evidence and my report was assessed for evidence that only an expert could give in direct relationship to the event. At the end of the day I was called back into court only to hear the judge say that he would not accept my report into evidence. The following day I was urgently called back to court by the plaintiff’s solicitor as I was requested to give evidence in the case as a lay witness (the subtlety of this is without precedent). The plaintiff’s barrister had been given a Briefing letter by the Solicitor on which I had appended my new designation eg – Chartered Safety & Health Practitioner. I again entered the witness box, and was again subject to cross examination. I was asked by the Judge what my profession title was. To this I replied, “I was a Chartered Safety & Health Practitioner. The judge asked “by whom are you chartered” and I replied the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health a premier Professional Health and Safety organization in the UK under the auspices of the Privy Council. I further stated that I was a practicing professional safety consultant and this type of incident unfortunately occurred industry, and which I had investigated on numerous occasions. I was after further questioning, permitted by his honour to give evidence, not as an expert witness but as a Chartered professional Safety and Health Practitioner, as I had qualifications, experience and training to give evidence in this capacity. This was the opportunity the plaintiff’s barrister was waiting for and proceeded to ask me such questions which enabled me to provide the technicalities of the trip and fall event as outlined in my report but which I needed to verbally expand on with references to biomechanical/kinetics/physical laws (Newtonian) as explanations in describing how it was the plaintiff fell in the distinct manner and did not in the first instance fall to the ground on hands and knees. I was in the witness box for two hours under cross examination and being satisfied with the evidence that I provided his honour thanked me for this information and I left the court. The court was adjourned for a short break and I was approached by the plaintiff barrister and solicitors and congratulated for the depth and clarity with which I had described the event based on the evidence. In essence what looked grim for the plaintiff on day one moved to a position of sufficient doubt on day two, leaving the court to argue the question of negligence and liability, rather than a dismissal. So what in the first instance appeared to be a catastrophic loss for the plaintiff suddenly turned when the court realized my expertise and standing as a Chartered Safety & Health Practitioner and I was permitted by his honour to demonstrate my understanding and knowledge in this capacity. This is yet just one personal example in my humble opinion, why it was necessary for IOSH moved to C/FMIOSH. There will always be detractors that will continue to rebuke IOSH for the move to professional recognition, but there are very real reasons why this change was needed. Any professional has to establish credibility and this is paramount as it engenders confidence in those to whom you provide your professional services and or advise as in the above practical example. As can be seen not having this professional designation may have for this unfortunate person, has a disastrous outcome leaving themselves to struggle with ongoing health problems and limited capacity to earn a living (he was a carpenter).

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Richard Your account of "technicalities of the trip and fall event as outlined in my report but which I needed to verbally expand on with references to biomechanical/kinetics/physical laws (Newtonian)" is a nice example of quality communication. As a safety ergonomist (i.e. CMIOSH and M Erg S), may I encourage you to consider copying the gist of this thread to the editor of The Ergonomist, so that ergonomists can learn how another court appreciates lucid accounts of ergonomic perspectives?

Posted By Chris Pope Further to Kierian's posting just now, I would appreciate finding your account in the SHP - IOSH magazine, if you have a chance.

Posted By Stupendous Man Richard, 'I was after further questioning, permitted by his honour to give evidence, not as an expert witness but as a Chartered professional Safety and Health Practitioner, as I had qualifications, experience and training to give evidence in this capacity.' So, in other words, you were asked to give evidence as a lay witness and not as an expert witness. Or are you suggesting that the Courts have created a new type of witness? While I agree that your new found Chartered status may have persuaded the judge to ask for your evidence, I think it is stretching the truth a little to say that you were asked to give evidence as a 'Chartered professional Safety and Health Practitioner'. I am glad that the courts did make the effort in this situation to get the evidence of a health and safety professional and welcome any efforts that are made to see the profession represented in an expert' capacity.