Posted By Andy Walker
I've just had a quick scan of the thread and as usual it appears that people are confusing H&S with risk avoidance and litigation practiced by some and caused by the no win no fee vultures.

Perhaps instead of blaming H&S for the countries ills and irrational decisions (bonkers conkers again springs to mind) people ought to look to their own attitudes, stupidity and financial motivations and then decide who's to blame for the way this are turning out. It's certainly not us H&S professionals.

Andy W

Posted By Merv Newman
Difficult to add a coherent answer here. Maybe HSE are starting a propaganda campaign to get away from the "conkers bonkers" and "I'm going to sue someone" approaches. Thank God (user-chooser there)

The problem is that people who organise "events" are totally scared of being sued if something goes wrong and a child (maybe adult) gets hurt. Being sued can result in losing your job or even your house or your livelihood.

Perhaps we need some jurisprudence indicating that if you, or if you allow your children to, undertake an activity associated with a known or previsible level of risk then the responsibility is yours. Not the organisor's.

We, in france, have recently had a "bouncy castle" take off in the wind with a few injuries. Investigators are trying hard to find a meterological explantation. (mini-tornado) Not wanting to blame the owner.

I understand that in the UK for a similar incident, "sabotage" or "malicious intent" are the preferred explanations. Some cultural differences out there ?

Anyone know a "good" judge ?

Merv

Posted By Andy Walker
Totally agree Merv. the problem, as we all know, swept (or should that be slithered) over from the other side of the Atlantic.

Remember the case where the guy sued after he switched on the cruise control of his camper (I won't name the manufacturer, AUG's and that)then went into the back to mash a cup of tea or coffee and was suprised when the vehicle crashed!! Sucessful case as it was not stated in the handbook that cruise control didn't do everything including braking in an emergency.

I can understand the Risk Avoidance culture especially in the public service sector as certain sections of society see a claim as free money. After all it's not their fault it's somebody elses, they have no resposibilities to their children or themselves, somebody else should do that.

What a sad state of affairs when common sense can no longer be relied upon and instructions down to the finite dotted i and crossed t must be imposed.

And yes as the BBC thread states sometimes childrens fun has to be spoiled but don't point the finger at H&S personnel as we play with the hand we are dealt.

Andy W

Posted By Andy Walker
Is Kismet

You're right I can't disagree with anything you have said and I also despair at some of the 'advice' given on this thread. However with regard to the BBC thread the point I was trying to make is that some of our lesser 'real world' collegues react to the demands of insurers and the posssible threat of litigation with a knee-jerk reaction. This as I state is caused by the No Win No Fee culture creeping in.

Andy W

Posted By Is Kismet
Andy, could you authoritively source your camper van tale. I can find it on blogs but nothing else.

Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,

I would agree with Is if the level of the debate on the BBC site got to the levels of sophistication his examples do! At least the people on this site can largely differentiate between civil and criminal law, the discussion in question is guided by man-in-the-pubbery and tabloid rumour, nothing more.

In other words, saying we are to sometimes blame because some of us get hung up occasionally on stuff like the Asbestos at Work regs is no help when the opinions on offer don't even know the odds between civil and criminal law. For a proper debate on this subject we need to educate everybody (it seems) in basic legal principles and critical reading,

John

Posted By Is Kismet
Forgive me John but wasn't the discussion about the HSC wanting people to concentrate on more than the trivialities - which is what I was commenting on when responding to Andy.

Certainly broaden it out, but don't lose sight of the target.

Posted By Andy Walker
John

Who mentioned driving whilst drinking it?

Coffee is hot therefore care is required whilst handling it. Common sense?

Contributary negligence? Then he/she must have sued. Would it have been the same had it been some corner caff? Perhaps the promise of loadsamoney helped the decision.

Therefore a poor safety guy somewhere has to issue a dictum stating our insurers need us to inform people the coffee is hot. Oh and mark it on the cups then we're covered. Tell me that's not barmy!

Andy W

Posted By Merv Newman
Whoa. Hot coffee, even at 100°C will not, in my humble opinion, cause 3rd degree burns - can't remember the exact definition but 3rd °includes destruction of underlying muscular tissue : "deep burning".

100 ml of hot coffee could only cause at the most localised 2nd degree burns : blistering and damage to superficial tissue, epidermis and subdermis. 1st degree burns equals to blistering and reddening of epidermis. Try it for yourself one of these days (not too close to the soft bits) with a plastic cup of coffee which is (usually) about 70°C. I reckon that 1st degree is about all you will suffer. The "soft bits" may be a bit more sensitive but the actual tissue damage will be, I reckon, about 1

The MacDo lady at first got awarded heavy compensation which was drastically reduced on appeal. Lots of arguments between lawyers on definitions of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns. But I think that Mac Do were so happy with results of the appeal that they stopped fighting. Too early perhaps.

Anyway, it used to be, still is perhaps, that insurance comapnies preferred to settle rather than bear the costs of a court case. Which sent out the message that any claim would be profitable. Wrong in the long term. Nowadays people believe that if you claim you will make a profit.

Am right or deluded ?

Discuss

So, back to the original thread. Should we/how could we get people to admit/accept their own responsibility for accidents to themselves/their children ?

2x2x2 = 8 possible questions in that last sentence

Merv

Posted By Chris Packham
How about the claim by a Chinese student at Portsmouth University claiming a refund for her course as she could not continue, being allergic to fish! (Yes, I know it's not Friday!)

I seem to remember reading that someone tried the coffee claim in the U.K. and the judge threw it out, stating that if the coffee had not been hot he would have been upset. So perhaps our judiciary do possess some of that rare commodity, common sense?

Posted By Pugwash
Let's remember that evidence presented by the HSE shows we do not have a compensation culture in the UK and there are no signs that we are developing one. Its a myth. What we do have is a perception by many that we do have a compensation culture which needs to be tackled by more and more draconian risk control measures supported by masses of paperwork for use "just in case we are sued"

Unfortunately some of those with this perception are members of our profession. They can sometimes provide their employers with poor advice and it is this which I feel is at the root of the problem. There is some truth behind many of the "conkers bonkers" stories and behind that I think we will often find health and safety professionals who, perhaps because lack of experience or lack of confidence, are providing poor advice to their employers. It's not all of the story but I think it is part of it.







Sensible risk management IS NOT about:
Creating a totally risk free society;
Generating useless paperwork mountains

Posted By Andy Walker
Very well in hindsight I was perhaps wrong to quote sensationalised tabloid material however no claims culture? Here is some reputable information.

"The popular perception that making spurious claims is in effect free money must be overturned. We agree with the BRTF (Better Regulation Task Force) analysis that these claims add a significant burden to the compensation system whilst making organisations risk-averse and hampering those who are seeking legitimate compensation for damage done".

Gary Booton EEF Director of Health, Safety and Environment 27/05/04


"But we must also tackle the causes of the underlying problems. So in consultation with the various sectors, we will develop appropriate guidance on issues like health and safety. We will encourage appropriate and proportionate risk management procedures and promote the need for responsible behaviour, not only from those in charge of the activity but also from those taking part. These actions will not only help to give those providing the activity confidence about risk, its management and their role but will also give the insurance industry confidence that risk is being managed responsibly. And while Government cannot determine the commercial pressures upon them, we want to encourage local authorities and their insurers to resist bad claims if they are made. Where state bodies are involved, we will do our bit to resist such claims, because not doing so only encourages more bad claims to be made.
The Government is committed to tackling all these issues. If we want to stop, for example, local authorities closing down sensible activities because they unrealistically fear litigation then people need to be confident that the system is fair and that it will deliver proportionate dispute resolution".

Excerpt from Tackling the “Compensation Culture”
Government Response to the Better Regulation Task Force Report: ‘Better Routes to Redress’
10 November 2004

Excerpt from the Telegraph 14/07/2004

Britain's love affair with horse riding is coming under increasing threat from the growing compensation culture, it was claimed yesterday.

According to the British Horse Society, dozens of pony trekking centres and riding schools are being forced to close because of spiralling insurance costs and customer claims.

Some riding schools have seen insurance costs increase five-fold in the past five years.

If there is no problem why form a Government task force to investigate it?

Though I am not prepared to discuss them on this forum I have sucessfully, along with our insurers, fought several claims which in in my opinion would never have seen the light of day had the claimants not been encouraged to claim by the type of company I discussed earlier.

Unfortunately the repercussion of this is that these incidents then may generate the the type of risk aversion we all hate.

Andy W

Posted By Jim Walker
It would seem that us professionals are also captivated by the myths as much as the public. Most ones quoted here are from across the pond anyway. Can anyone actually verify where a “silly” claim has won its way through our civil courts?

I think most of us here agree its not elf n safety so much as insurance people and lawyers. How do they arrive at their conclusions that seem to be causing spiralling insurance costs, I assume they work to some system superior to the bookies.

When I run courses, conversation inevitably comes round to those adverts on the telly. I use that “they gave me the wrong ladder one” to illustrate how on the face of it the bloke was unlikely to get any compo., if simple SSoW were in place. I then invite my audience to tell me what that system should be. And that the lawyers involved are not running a charity.

Posted By Is Kismet
Jim, you wrote: I think most of us here agree its not elf n safety so much as insurance people and lawyers.

I seem to be on a one man mission here but I completely disagree with you. It is our profession causing the problem. Someone mentioned that we are playing with the hand dealt to us - that is so far from reality. We deal the hand, we interpret the rules, we have 'the largest safety institution in the EU', we should have the most influence.

Posted By Pugwash
I disagree Jim. I think it is unlikely to be a lawyer somewhere who has stopped the activity. There will be (or should be!) a health and safety professional around somewhere who has had some input into the matter and who has given poor advice. If it was a lawyer who gave the advice and the h+s person said/did nothing then that was the equivalent of giving poor advice. I agree with Kismet that some members of our profession are the cause of the problem and together we can also be the solution.

Posted By Calum Clark
The problem is not the actual number of compensation claims that are made or won, its public perception. You can quaote as much statistics and argue about facts of individual cases but it doesn't make much difference.

The HSE's website contains so many rebuttles to ill informed articles and stories in the press to show that they are ususally more interested in selling papers than actually analyisng the facts.

Couple this with the abundance of ads for no win no fee lawyers (where there's a blame there's a claim) and you make those non h and s professionals who have to take decisions very nervous.

As a result a lot of conkers bonkers decisions get taken and public perception of our profession gets worse. The papers report these and the cylce continues.

Posted By Is Kismet
"some members of our profession are the cause of the problem and together we can also be the solution"

Nicely put Pugwash - my sentiments completely. I'm considering putting those words up on a banner in our office.

Posted By Ron Young
I agree with everything Is K says, we are guilty as a profession. I remember a few years ago on this forum one of our own looking for advice on what to do and say to staff based in Manchester who were terrified of major earthquakes causing untold damage to their office. This was after a few "tremors" were reported in that area. He wanted to know about evacuation routes and assembly points after such an event. Really mind numbing stuff. I'm also sure that one of our learned colleagues mentioned that his risk assessment would identify all the neccessary required procedures to be put in place. Amazingly clever these risk assessment thingy's...

Posted By John Mackessack
One of the contributors to the BBC 'add your rant' list, went on about how UK H&S laws were making british business' uncompetitive within Europe. He also claimed to have nebosh quals and was therefore a bit of an expert.

It always makes me smile when some halfwit (not you guys!) with only half the story, starts preaching on about how it's only the UK that has a compensation culture in Europe.

It is probably not a coincidence that the UK is also one of the few countries that has not embraced no-fault legislature. Hence we don't load our business employment costs by 1 - 2% due to the requisite insurance. ELCI is a very cheap option....so long as effective safety management is in place.

The fact is that your average German, Italian whatever doesn't sue his employer after an accident for a multitude of reasons, including the small fact that he doesn't have the legal right to do so.

Having said that, he is almost certain to receive some form of remunerative compensation, some damned good medical care and rehabilitation.

Downside - you generally have to be 'employed' to be insured and to benefit.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Posted By Darren J Fraser
Definition of an 'expert'

EX - has been

sPERT - drip under pressure

Nebosh qualifications or not, no-one can claim to be an expert in H&S due to the vast subject matter and the depth of knowledge required for each.

I do not believe for one minute that British business is uncompetitive due to H&S either, as we all have to implemnt European H&S directives, or have I totally misunderstood the entire H&S legislation setup.