Health & Safety law does not apply to commuting, unless the employee is travelling from their home to a location which is not their usual place of work....

What are peoples view on the above statement, i thought that the employer was responsible (afarp) for the employees return journey home from work?

Uvsar is right - H&S responsibilities can't apply to commuting journeys.

My boss was accidentally head-butted while getting on a train yesterday, on the way to work, resulting in seven stitches: How could the company have possibly prevented or reduced the risk of that?

Having said that, there's probably a degree of moral responsibility for employees driving home after working exceptional hours, but even then, it's only moral and not legal.

Isn't that what Paul said though? That the court would look rather unfavourably on an employer who permitted an employee to drive straight after working long hours?

What would be deemed excessive? And in what way would the company be negligent? I'm asking more out of interest than argument.

UVSAR states that the 1974 etc Act applies whilst at work and I'd be inclined to agree. If you're an uninsurable, free agent once you finish work surely you are so beforehand too?

And, if employers are now liable for commuting after hours, how do we go about controlling it?

Can we define the term 'commute to work', please?

If I commute to work and back in a works vehicle such as a van. Van is badly maintained by company. Van goes off road and kills pedestrian. Would the employer, and employee not be held responsible?

Farrell, my question was to 'define commute', the works van issue was a scenario, as not everyone 'commuting' to work, travels by bike (knocked over by bus perhaps), train (mugged perhaps), or uses their own personal car (drink driving perhaps).

And I am well aware of the need to protect my own Health and Safety, but thanks for reminding me.

Just a quick two pennorth from me. This is an issue that I have had several opportunties to examine in some detail - I was H&S in an organisation when an employee tried to drive home after a (very extended) period assisting during a major emergency - and collided head-on with a taxi causing fatal injury. And again when a number of care assistants were 'pestered' when leaving their work in the early hours.. Whilst there 'may' be no explicit coverage in H&S@WA or Regs (but like so many other questions on here, "it depends"...), there is very strong common law and moral obligation...

"Commuting" is not just the 9-5 trudging through crowds... Some people travel home at 2.00am - young women leaving bar and hotel jobs for example.... I suspect that any employer who failed to take account of their safety in travelling (and arrange a taxi or provide a lift...) would be held not to have provided 'a safe system of work' . And a lighthouse keeper travelling home by employer-provided heli after a three week shift isolated on Muckle Flugga (or do they live in the lighthouse?) would certainly be covered...

And even the 9-5ers might be covered where by custom and practice the employer provides a fleet of buses to bring people in and take 'em home. It could be argued that the employer's responsibility begins when the employee gets on the bus perhaps?

In these cases there are other factors to be taken into consideration. In one of the cases Ray refers to above, the 2006 judgement was to do with a fatal accident, but it was a situation where someone had worked 11 days in a row with no days off, and had averaged 18-19 hours a day during the final 3 days of that 11 day stint. Other workers were also working very long shifts.

http://www.hrzone.co.uk/item/156368 - for those who want a peek.

Judge Gareth Hawksworth at Cambridge Crown Court said the firm had failed to monitor the hours employees worked which was the issue under investigation - this in itself IMHO does not create a precedent for HASAWA to normally include the daily 'normal' commute. It would, I believe, always be conditions out of the ordinary for the daily commute which would cause (or contribute to) an investigation or prosecution in the event of an accident during the commute.

Farrell, time for some warm milky tea and wee lie down, methinks it is Friday after all

On a similar vein. During their working day, a home carer trips over on the public footpath whilst walking from one home to another.
Is this classified as out of or in connection with their work and depending on the following circumstances, would this be reportable under RIDDOR?

Health & Safety law does not apply to commuting, unless the employee is travelling from their home to a location which is not their usual place of work....

I believe many of the posts here have completely missed the point, hence I have repeated it above. If I were to travel to London for a business meeting (i.e. not my usual place of work), but normally worked in Chatham, this would be a situation where H&S Law applied to travel both ways. The fact is I have left my home to go on business for my employer,therefore the journey to and from the location must be included, unless of course I choose to go to the theatre in London afterwards! I could be deemed to have completed my working day the minute I start to head for the theatre route and not go straight home, if you see the point.

Under the HASWA I believe the courts would more-or-less see it this way, why - because it is reasonable!
The other evidence to support this conclusion would be as to who paid for the journey, whatever the mode/s of travel used.

Well good for you!

There appears to be a bit of nastiness and sarcastism creeping in.

Phil,

didn't really mean you.

I didn't really follow my own way of thinking 'you can't read attitude in a e-mail, so just ignore the comments.