Posted By GaryC40 Hello, Heres an early Friday poser that i am hoping someone may be able to provide some assistance on. The scenario is as follows :- A summer carnival is organised by a 3rd party charity. The event takes place on a public highway which has been closed down especially by the local council authority. The public highway runs adjacent to piers and quays that are owned, operated and maintained by a separate Port Authority (PA)(not municipal).The PA land is accessible to the public on a normal day to day basis. The event attracts significant more people that normal (est 3/5000). The PA has nothing to do with the organising of the event and is not consulted by the 3rd party or local authority. High numbers of people overspill onto the PA operated quay during the peak period. A small drain cover on PS land fails and a member of the public injures their leg. Not serious, however some cuts and bruises and ligament damage. The person is taken to hospital for treatment. Litigation proceeds with the injured party claiming the PA for damages. Remember the PA is responsible for the land but the event has nothing to do with the Ports business. The PA fails to complete RIDDOR 2508 under reg 3 within the 10 day period of grace. Question: Are there any mitigating factors for the PA? Should the 3rd party have completed an RA for the event and submitted it to the local authority for review and approval? (i suggest yes) Should the LA have contacted the PA to look at the possible consequences of so many people being able to access the quayside areas. Who is ultimately responsible for completion of 2508, PA ? LA ? or both? The injured party formally reported the incident to the PA in the first instance. NB the drain cover has since been repaired by the PA. I know the PA has a duty of care to all persons within their area of operations / control, however the event was not the undertaking of the PA. Is the PA likely to be fined for not reporting in time? Help! BTW - this is a real issue i have to deal with!Ist reportable in 7 years. ANY HELP PLEASE! GC

Posted By GaryC40 Thanks for the response Phil - Yes i agree this is a cracking poser for early Friday peers! 'Grace' i agree, just my terminology. The PA knew about the incident a few days after the event, however failed to act on it (in terms of reporting to HSE. IMO the drain would probably not have failed if it were not for the excessive pressure administered by onlookers. In any case the incident is reportable due to the injured person seeking medical treatment immediately after the accident. Alas there was a failure of communication at the PA and the incident was handled in-house...unsuccessfully as litigation is now in progress. I think that the organiser and LA have a responsibility to carry out an RA and liaise with relevant 3rd parties such as the PA, which did not happen. I agree that the PA should still report to ICC and have advised this. The problem is the person is claiming compensation from the PA when in actual fact it was not their event... PS. the drain cover was not broken at the time, rather the supporting method failed under the stress. Perhaps a minor maintenance issue, but i think the PA is getting a raw deal. If anything the PA needs to re-train relevant staff on RIDDOR requirements. What do you think? G

Posted By Paul Skyrme 1st NOT my specialism, BUT, was this a reasonably foreseeable incident? If NOT, then how could the PA risk assess against this, or conduct maintenance to such a level to prevent the occurrence of an incident that could not have reasonably been foreseen?

Posted By GaryC40 Ron, The PA is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of drains on the property. There is clear evidence that the PA maintains the facility to a high standard. Policies, procedures and logs of maintenance and inspections are in place. I would suggest that the event was relevant to the failure as the cover was subjected to significantly more stress than could be predicted in a realistic RA (if one had been carried out by the organiser / LA) The question is:- is the PA totally responsible for the incident and therefore any subsequent claim? Should the PA have been consulted by the the organiser and/or LA. Is the organiser / LA liable in any way as the event was ultimately 'there show' not the PA. There is no doubt that the amount of people in the area contributed to the failure of the drain cover. IMO. GC

Posted By Swis Without reading the other responses.... IMO – PA do not need to complete the RIDDOR in this case.. 3rd party should have have completed an RA. No-one responsible to report as RIDDOR

Posted By steve e ashton Just because there is litigation doesn't necessarily mean there has been fault. You say "There is clear evidence that the PA maintains the facility to a high standard. Policies, procedures and logs of maintenance and inspections are in place." If that evidence is clear, and the court accepts that the PA did everything that was reasonably practicable to achieve the safety of their premises, the claim will fail. The bloodsucking nowinnofee lawyers will have to get their money from the insurance rather than the victim (sorry - the PA). The true victim - the injured party - will get nothing, since this was 'just one of those things - it was an unforseeable/unpreventable accident'. There is no absolute 'right' to compensation in this country, a fault must be shown - and in this instance it sounds as if the PA has not been at fault... But yes, the PA would be liable if their property was unsafe, since they knew (or ought to have known) that members of the puiblic routinely accessed their roads etc. The fact of an event taking place and increasing the footfall traffic is largely irrelevant. Also - are you clear the injury was actually reportable? You suggest that the injured party 'had medical treatment'. That is not the same thing as being taken to a hospital for treatment - which is the criterion for RIDDOR. Steve

Posted By Swis I don't report (RIDDOR) if someone gets injured whilst visiting me at my house.

Posted By Peter F. The injury to the member of the public has to have been suffered, 'where a person not at work suffers an injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work, and that person is taken to hospital for treatment for the injury' as this was not in connection to any work activity being carried out it is not reportable. I don't think the LA report all incidents, when people slip on paving flags, fall over etc.

Posted By Swis Very strange indeed - but there you go (problem solved)

Posted By D H Agree not reportable under RIDDOR. The PA if not consulted could not have "reasonably forseen" the volume of people on his site. The organisers should have had crowd control in the risk assessment Dave

Posted By D H Hi Gary - challenge the ICC ruling - put the ball back in their court. Give us their reason why (if they don't back down) -and pass the learning back to us please? Pull the 3rd party into this - get them to explain their planning - or lack of. Then pull the LA in as to why they allowed the 3rd party to go ahead without a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment. Dodgy drain cover? - you can argue the MOT test - OK last time we looked - 10 people per week in area. Now a failure with 2000 extra people who were not expected? You are on safe ground in my humble opinion. Apart from the dodgy drain covers lol? Dave

Posted By Paul Skyrme Please ignore my earlier post with regard to reasonably foreseeable, as you all seem to have! I mixed up an email & the forum post, the person I was emailing has come back to me asking what RIDDOR had to do with their predicament! SORRY!