Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Bob
Can anyone please help with a legal question concerning legal liability surrounding the hiring out of MEWPs? (or other equipment for that matter)
Where such equipment is hired out without operator what are the respective legal duties of the hirer and the hiree?
Needless to say, under PUWER the hirer will have to ensure that statutory inspection takes place and that a suitable and sufficient maintenance programme is adhered to whilst the plant is in their possession but my question concerns whether the hirees operator has suitable and sufficient training.
When the item is dropped off by the hirer the delivery driver will (hopefully) give a demonstration but where more comlex and hazardous plant (like MEWPs) are involved this demo will certainly not constitute sufficient training for its safe operation.
Also, when the plant is with the hiree who is responsible if regular checks of the equipment are not carried out and, in the case of long-term hire, who is responsible for ensuring statutory maintenance?
Sorry it's such a long-winded question but my own research has not satisfactorily resolved any of these questions so any help would be invaluable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Hi Bob,
In Ireland this issue has been addressed in the general application regulations which come into effect on 1st nov of this year.( Regulation 59)
I know this will not apply to the UK, but it may be of some assistance.
Seamus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Sorry, penultimate paragraph should read statutory inspection, not maintenance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Thanks very much Seamus, this will help greatly - I don't suppose you have a link?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Hi Bob,
I have just glanced at this regulation,(59) It does not specificly mention mewps,but lifting equipment, dont know what you think about it applying to mewps, i presume it will.
Seamus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Tremendous info Seamus, thankyou. Although Irish legislation, it does help to focus my thinking a lot.
These regs tackle the statutory inspection and testing of lifting equipment and the keeping of records and registers. Unfortunately though they don't tackle the issue of who's duty it is to ensure the operative is properly trained.
Does anybody have any info or views on this please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright Bob, In UK the relevant legislation is surely LOLER http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982307.htmbut if I recall correctly the clauses always say 'every employer shall ensure....' and never makes reference to using hired equipment, so as an employer you shall ensure...... John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Thanks for this John,
Does this mean that the hirer can simply drop the equipment off on site and, provided it is in proper working order and has a current statutory inspection, forget all about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
The hiring-out company will have to have a certification of inspection, I think it's every six months for equipment that lifts people.
If you have some sort of incident or failure then liability should be obvious, depending what has happened.
You never know what can happen. Just spoke to an engineer at a customer and he recalled an incident years ago when the AXLE broke on a hired MEWP, no serious outcome; an inspection would not have spotted that weakness but if there had been a serious injury, fatality or damage, then I expect in that case the liability would have been tracked back to the manufacturer.
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Thanks John,
Applying my original question to your example what would be the position if the axle broke because the MEWP was being incorrectly operated owing to insufficient or no training. The employer would be obviously be liable for failing to ensure that the the operator had received suitable and sufficient training but would the hirer also be brought into it, say for not making it clear that the equipment cannot be used by any old Tom, Dick or Harry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
Bob,
>>what would be the position if the axle broke because the MEWP was being incorrectly operated owing to insufficient or no training.
Gosh, in what circumstances would that occur? The case I'm referring to was a cherry-picker type MEWP. I'm not a mechanical engineer but I expect the axle would only break if it had a stress flaw or the MEWP was overloaded. Overloading is unlikely.
>>The employer would be obviously be liable for failing to ensure that the the operator had received suitable and sufficient training
Well, the employer would be liable if the MEWP had, for example, a collision or fell over due to uneven ground, and those could be down to insufficient training or unsuitable/insufficient risk assessment.
>>but would the hirer also be brought into it, say for not making it clear that the equipment cannot be used by any old Tom, Dick or Harry?
No. I believe they can hire it to anyone. It's then the employer's responsibility to do risk assessments based on their staff, training, the job, the location, the environment/weather.
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.