I work in the health service and one key issue for us is violence to staff, particularly in mental health settings. We are putting together a proposal for lone worker protection devices/alarms and would be interested in including any relevant case law to support this case. Is anyone aware of any relevant decisions where the absence of the employer providing such devices feautured. Thanks in advance.

Thanks John - it is the LSMS that is asking for the case law!

I am not aware of any case law, but I am sometimes puzzled why the justification for the introduction of suitable precautions and protocols, often seems to hinge on there being some case law available. And before I get shot down, I accept that it can help, especially with the bean counters, but it shouldn't have to form the only or the main basis for justification. (if that was where the reasoning for the query/request lies!)

Phil, I wonder if you slightly misinterpreted my post? The point I was trying to make that H&S are often faced with having to justify x, y or z to the 'powers that be' by the use of case law, and I question why this should always have to be the main, sole or significant justification for doing something. You are correct that we should learn from others mistakes, and I am sure that we all look at both 'accident investigations' rather than just rely on those that have resulted in case law. BUT, not only should we learn by others mistakes (and I note that there are very few 'new' accidents, but rather more of the same kind of accidents, happening time and time again, so arguably we aren't always learning very well) but we should also foresee accidents before they happen and seek to prevent them from happening, by risk assessment and the application of proportionate and effective controls. I accept that a significant element of such would be based on previous accident experience. The point I was really making is why do we have to and is it reasonable that we should have to justify very policy decision, suggested precaution etc on the basis of justification of case law, rather than sound, fundamental good risk management principles? I just think that it is a shame that we are often reduced to justiying on the basis of case law.

For Phil Rose, I do not think that I mis-interpreted your initial posting. To me it seems that we are talking about the very same thing - learning from experience. However, for the vast majority of situations i.e. SMEs, small charities etc there will no internal or in-house "experience" to use. There will just not be any volume of accidents, near misses etc for the employer or equivalent to review and consider. In the absence of a national reporting database that is viewable by all and sundry there isn't much available to use. Thus one has to fall back on what is out there, namely Notices, Prosecutions & (Civil) Case Law. Phil

500 quid for an audio CD?!!!!!! And only mp3, at that! What's the world come to! Sorry, but I nearly choiked when I saw this.