Posted By Tim Did he go direct to hospital for treatment, I assume it was a different hospital that treated the person.

Posted By Darren (Daz) Fraser Phillipe IMHO you should report, but make very clear in the report that the individual was an unauthorised person on site. Some of the measures you could state that you are currently doing could include a complete review of current security arrangements to prevent a re-occurrence, restriction of access to area from which they fell if at all possible etc. If an EHO does visit, then you can explain to them all that you have done, but a trespasser is on site illegally etc, short of 24/7 security patrols there is not a lot that can be done realistically. Any cost incurred I would try to recover from the person (but do not hold your breath), regardless of the outcome of any criminal investigation.

Posted By CFT Whopping great area that will include the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (assuming your not in Scotland) and the Health & Safety at work Act 1974. OLA 57 is visitors, the quoted 84 Act includes trespassers as indicated above. I recommend you get some specialist advice as a matter of some urgency; there is much to look at from both sides of the fence. There is good reason why you have said inspectorate on your property; spend some time researching the above examples for a detailed explanation. CFT

Posted By CFT Sorry Paul, incorrect; 'if a member of the public suffers an injury and is taken to hospital or is killed you must notify the enforcing authority without delay by the same way as you would, had it been a work related situation'. CFT

Posted By Heather Collins This entirely depends on whether you can consider that any part of the accident arose "out of or in connection with work" (quote taken direct from the RIDDOR Regs). The RIDDOR guidance document L73 says there are 3 key factors in determining this: 'the manner of conducting an undertaking'. This refers to the way in which any work activity is being carried out for the purposes of an undertaking, including how it is organised, supervised or performed by an employer or any of their employees, or by a self-employed person; for example: boxes spread across a walkway cause someone trying to get around them to be injured. · 'the plant or substances used for the purposes of the undertaking'. This includes, for example: lifts; air conditioning plant; any machinery, equipment or appliance; gas installations; and substances used in connection with the premises or with processes carried on there. One example would be somebody who enters a lift and trips and falls because the lift had not stopped level with the floor. · 'the condition of the premises used by the undertaking or of any part of them'. This includes the state of the structure or fabric of a building or outside area forming part of the premises and the state and design of floors, paving, stairs, lighting etc; for example, a building is being refurbished and a temporary wall collapses, injuring a passer-by. (all this is quoted directly from para 34 of the guidance) Therefore I would agree with what was stated above. Only if the state of the roof itself due to work being carried out on it had contributed to the accident is this likely to be reportable. It seems most likely that it will not be although of course we can't really say without knowing more details.

Posted By Andrew W Your liability towards people who are not your visitors The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 sets out the duty of care you owe to people you have not invited or permitted to be on your land, such as trespassers. Normally, you still owe such people some duty of care if: you know there is a danger, and know that people may be in (or come into) the vicinity of the danger – or in either case you have reasonable grounds for believing this to be so; and the risk is one against which you may reasonably be expected to offer some protection. Where these criteria apply, you have to take reasonable care that people do not suffer injury on your land. You may be able to discharge this duty of care by warning people about a danger (eg. with a notice) but this may not always be enough. For example, some extra precautions may be needed if you believe unsupervised children are likely to use your land. Again, this duty of care does not apply to risks that adults willingly accept on behalf of themselves or those immediately in their care. Taken from http://www.openaccess.go.../wps/portal/lm/liability Hope this is some help Andy

Posted By CFT Paul Absolutely, not a problem to provide that in the slightest;I specifically will not offer assistance or advice without legislative support,BS, ACoP or best Practice/HSG, stating which is applicable if appropriate to do so, it is a legislative requirement to report taking the original information supplied as completely accurate. RIDDOR http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/guidance.htm#what Click on, what is reportable. scroll down to: 'Reportable deaths and major injuries' Second paragraph, 'major injuries,' read towards second part of second line and continuing. CFT

Posted By Mitch You could have reported it and have been done with it in the time it would take to read all these responses, as Chris said if you over report no-ones going to penalise you.

Posted By CFT Phillipe As you were looking for views on the trespass issue and not neccesserily the Riddor one, do you now have sufficient reference material to understand why exactly the LA are involved? CFT

Posted By robert9 In my opinion, in terms of RIDDOR, this isn't reportable: as it wasn't connected to the work activity. In the past when I've been unsure I've called the HSE advice line, they are very helpful and the call is anonymous. Robert9

Posted By Pete Longworth A child of 6 was able to climb onto a roof. Must have been easy to get up there. What had you done to prevent it? What child of 6 is going to read warning notices? IMO you were lucky not to be prosecuted there and then. That sort of situation is what the OLAs are all about.

Posted By Christopher Kelly TechIOSH MIIRSM AIEMA Pete, when I was about 21 I went across a bridge near where I used to live as a young kid. I looked down between the 2 carriageways where I once climbed up the steelwork to get over the parapet and nearly needed to change my pants. I reckon I was 6 and my brother was 5 when we used to do that ! Agree there needs to be recognition that kids and tresspassers have a greater level of responsibility but if you leave a building easily accessible it will be a place of great fun to a kid. If there are easily identifiable risks (eg me climbing up the steelwork) then no problem. However there are lots of areas within buildings where a kid would have no idea of the risks until it was too late - then clearly the occupier should have done something to prevent it. It's all down to risk assessment / regular inspection of premises. Unfortunately some property owners seem to think they can leave properties to become dangerous without any responsibility on themselves. Regards