Posted By Dave Merchant
Personally I read that as a misinterpretation of the Act - while deaths resulting from negligent action or omission can and should be pursued, prosecuting the employer for deaths resulting from unforeseen freak accidents or misfortune are not the intention and wouldn't stand a chance in the courts.

If a company contracts an outdoor pursuits day from someone who is clearly incompetent then fine; there is a case to answer - but if all reasonably practicable measures have been taken and the event follows accepted 'industry' practice then any lingering risk is simply part of life. Take for example the 07 amendment to the Work at Height Regs, covering sports instructors - they aren't asked to be 100% safe, only as safe as they would "be expected to be" given the things they're teaching.


If the article was correct you could be hit by lightning as you walked across your company car park and have the directors arrested for not providing you with a chainmail suit.

Posted By Ron Hunter
Be fair - the H&S Consultant has had his name quoted, but his statement may well have been taken way out of context.
The Consultant is not attributed with the text in the rest of the article, which as I read is nothing more than sensationalist conjectural hyperbolae.
Responding directly to such articles (IMHO) tends to lend credence where it is not deserved.

Posted By Dave Merchant
Nobody in the general media will be interested in our opinions as it's fashionable to poke H&S with sticks these days.

"Health and Safety in conker-banning overkill! Shock! Children in tears! Parents in protests! Squirrels in trees!"

or

"Health and Safety is.. er.. reasonably sensible... er.... nobody is offended..."

Posted By Adam Hammerton
"*Responding directly to such articles (IMHO) tends to lend credence where it is not deserved.*

...and is pointless - my comment appears to have been censored out."



Mine too. So much for balanced journalism.

Posted By Paul Duell
*That's very interesting that comments are being censored to preserve the sensationalism of the article.*

Oh well, looking on the bright side that's tomorrow's blog entry. No-one censors my blog - although I suspect I don't have QUITE as many readers as the Times...

Posted By Robert Randall
Hi Sally,

my understanding is that voluntary activities such as the "office jolly" are covered by the maxim Volenti non fit injuria (Latin: "to a willing person, no injury is done"). A common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm does in fact happen.

There is always a misunderstanding of this in the press (sensationalist or not) as they tend to include all activities under the umbrella of "health and safety" when many are, quite clearly not intended to be covered by what is essentially employer - employee law.

Having said that the previous comments about ensuring the corporate entertainment is conducted by a competent organisation are a valid protection against actions for negligence.

My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that this sort of activity would be excluded from the Corporate Manslaughter Act since it is not "work". It is, in fact a gift to employees that they have the option to refuse. By accepting the gift surely, in law, they are taking the risk upon themselves?

Posted By Sally
ah, but this then brings up questions of how voluntary is voluntary. "You will come on this team building weekend or you won't get promoted"? A lot of pressure to take part in these things happens.

Mind you the only prosecution I can rememeber is when someone burnt her feet firewalking

Posted By Paul Duell
*Paul, can you please remind me where your blog is?*

Glad to - www.duell.org.uk

My bit about the Times will appear this evening (Wednesday).

(Note to mods - this is a personal blog with no commercial content!)

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Steady on though, more responses have appeared since yesterday and I recognise some of the names.

It could be that they pre-moderate the posts, hence the delay.

Posted By Tabs
Well mine is there :-) So it's not a complete conspiracy