Posted By Ron Hunter More likely to fall foul of the DDA. Why get hung up about what law applies. Was it foreseeable, could it happen again? Time to get the white (or other suitably contrasting colour) paint out!

Posted By Sally The risk may be forseeable but is it 'significant'. If I'm reading the post right the maximum she could fall was eight inches. Not likely to do much serious damage. In these days of sensible health and safety we need to be more prepared to stand up and say that the risk was low and therefore we didn't feel it necessary to take precautions.

Posted By timwright Irrespective of whether the accident to the member of Public was Working / walking at height and whether the hazard was adequately controlled or not. The issue here may also be that if the member of public (person not at work)was injured and this is as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work and results in them being taken from the premises where the accident occurred to a hospital, by whatever means (e.g taxi, private car or ambulance) then the accident is RIDDOR reportable. See RIDDOR Reg3(1) & associated ACOP for guidance. I am assuming that by your question the person was injured more seriously than just requiring basic first aid.

Posted By Geoff Armstrong Robert. I don't think you have a problem here. Most people can quite safely negotiate walking along a 2 metre wide footpath without falling off the kerb! Even if it is a couple of inches higher than a normal kerb. Don't go overboard. On the face of it, it seems an acceptable level of risk that the odd person may not look where they are walking and suffer as a result of their own carelessness.

Posted By Robert K Lewis I am not so sure about the low level of risk involved here especially with a school environment. The question must be whether there was any real need for an 8 inch high step off the edge? Could not the landscaping have been modified to be level with the walkway? Unexpected drops of such as this height are likely to cause painful if not major injuries such as bone fractures. I think both the Workplace regs and the section 4 duties could be brought into play by a half decent claims lawyer. Bob

Posted By GeoffB4 What's on the other side of the plinth - is it also concrete, if so is there a visual break eg different colours, or is it earth/grass? I'm trying to work out why this would be different to a pavement and stepping onto another level.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Another interesting thread with a range of views which tells me that the scenario illustrated is a borderline case. Only this week an acquaintance phoned me to ask advice due to an elderly lady taking a fall in his restaurant and she was claiming negligence and £300 compensation for her broken glasses. The claim of negligence was based on a ramp inside the entrance which had no handrail. The ramp itself is several feet wide and very shallow, no more than one normal stair step and there for wheelchair access. I advised that he should send the old dear a nice bunch of flowers with a card saying sorry to hear... blah blah. However, he should deny a claim of negligence, but it might be prudent to put up a handrail to prevent a similar occurrence. Does nobody accept any responsibility for an error on their part? The world has gone mad if you ask me. Where the risk is minimal, safety practitioners should acknowledge and defend the low risk, otherwise it will soon get out of hand. Ray

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ron Not wishing to denigrate your opinion but, would the highlighting of the ramp edges prevented the person from falling? No, I suspect is the answer. Furthermore, where proprietors try to accommodate and comply with the law this should be acknowledged. Many employers totally disregard health, safety and fire legislation, a minor infringement should be treated as such. Ray

Posted By Ron Hunter Raymond, irrespective or the opinion of you or I, the DDA would require the ramp edges to be highlighted in a contrasting colour. The same applies generally to stair nosings etc for those with partial sight.

Posted By GeoffB4 Nobody has answered the question about the visual break - is there one or not. If there is then the question is answered.

Posted By peter gotch Hi Ray. Not using the benefit of hindsight!! I have recommended that action be taken for similar hard landscaping issue on a very high profile and highly populated site in London, where the risks were exacerbated by the lighting design. Regards, Peter

Posted By GeoffB4 Bob35 - I'm not stating a case either way. I'm trying to build up the information to give an informed opinion. Although I guess that puts most of us in the minority on this forum.;-)

Posted By Robert K Lewis GeoffB4 Really do need the optician!! Trouble is that school children walking along a path at school are not working in the sense of WAHR. They are however in a workplace in premises managed by an organisation conducting education as part of its business and thus covered by section 3 and 4 dependent on what happens. Before the WAH amendment the question would not have been asked as the original repealed reg 13 could cover such situations - for me WAH does not and cannot reflect this situation and judges would argue that it was not the intention. Under the WPR it could have been argued that this was a dangerous edge from which persons might fall. Bob

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ron Gladly we can discuss this frankly and without malice and to point I accept what you are trying to convey. But, the reality is that many small businesses are unaware of the many duties and impositions placed on them. In any case, I could walk into ANY company and find all sorts of non-compliance, even those who have adequate resources. The proprietor I described earlier approached me and asked if I could provide an assessment of needs. He had virtually no health, safety and fire documentation, very limited practices and I provided a service (at a very reasonable rate of course). I was happy in the knowledge that he now had the proper management and controls in place (minus some DDA requirements). Then I get a phone call... Of course people are liable for civil action due to an accident on their premises. The reality, however, is that negligence is much harder to prove than most people realise. Furthermore, and unlike the USA, civil redress is not punitive in the UK and merely serves to correct a loss eg wages through loss of earnings. Most successful civil claims are for relatively small amounts. Unless a really serious accident occurs and negligence can be proved, otherwise most proprietors have little to worry about. The truth is, there are no simple answers and very few right and wrongs. I just think that some people need to be a little more focused about what is a risk, the resources needed to reduce the risk and whether it is acceptable or not. I guess that is what is termed ALARP. Have a good weekend and don't have nightmares. Ray

Posted By Geoff Armstrong Robert. Difficult to answer without knowing all the causes of the accident but a good ELCI Claims Farmer would pick through all the relevant pre-action disclosure documents you would have to provide if liability is denied and on the face of it I think you should be concerned about failing to carry out a pre-accident RA required by Reg 3 of MHSAW Regs and failing to prevent SFAIRP the falling of a distance likely to cause personal injury required by Reg 13 of Workplace Regs. You would also have to provide your housekeeping/maintenance records for the pathway. If your post-accident re-assessment has identified additional control measures are required then this could be used as an argument against you that your pre-accident control measures were not suitable or sufficient by your own admission. Hope this helps. Let me know if you would like me to email you a list of possible pre-action disclosure docs. Geoff

Posted By Robert K Lewis Robert R The answer to your question, as you have now posed it, has been answered clearly as YES. Occupiers of premises always have duties towards others with regards to the condition of the premises. HASAWA has also provided key general duties for the premises and for injuries, to persons not in their employment. Bob

Posted By Geoff Armstrong Duty of care owed - yes. Breach - Not necessarily, depends on the causes of the accident. It has yet to be seen if the injury was a result of a breach of any duty of care.