Rank: Forum user
|
All,
During the course of their journey between their home and a site, an employee is involved in a RTA when a third party collides with his stationary vehicle on a public road.
The employee does not require first aid and suffers no ill effects immediately following the accident, however the following day complains of stiffness and nausea. They do not attend work for the next three weekdays, and return to work at the start of the following week.
Assuming the third party is uninjured, outline the accident reporting procedures that should be followed for the above incident, including any reporting to the enforcing authority.
No, it's not a NEBOSH question (but I am considering it for a ten-pointer!). I think the majority of you will get the thrust of the question. Any suggested answers? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RIDDOR reportable , also notify the driver's insurance and Police.
Sounds like whiplash is on its way, a good masseur will be useful.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not the employers responsibility, the employee is travelling between home and work and is therefore, not 'At Work'.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Alex,
This is not a RIDDOR, on two counts. One, it is not arising out of work and two, it is an RTA on a pubolic road.
I wouldn't include this in my accident reports in-house either.
There is case law involving prosecution following a death in an RTA while driving home, but this was actually a prosecution about excessive working days, leading to the driver falling asleep at the wheel,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry I read it as between sites. If at the start of the workday then the first journey is "to work" so not on duy. If however the journey is following a lunch break then it could be at work.
Did the IP exchange details with the other driver?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
not RIDDOR
why are you asking?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is my first journey to site classed as being at work if my trip is from Wirral to Glasgow?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Wow, that was quick. Thanks for that.
Bob, in answer to your question I was asking because this isn't a fictional scenario and I'm not intending to complete an F2508 as it resulted from an RTA. I was looking for confirmation I had called it right - having checked out L73 too.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just to be quite clear about this; whether the employee is or is not at work (and they are not in this case) is very much a secondary reason for not reporting. The principle reason is that RTAs on public roads are specifically excluded from RIDDOR, and any time off resulting from an RTA would not be reportable, even if the employee was travelling between sites,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As an aside from the RIDDOR issue, if the Employees' normal place of work is Office X but was asked to go and do a site visit at Site Y, would this journey, if he went straight to site from home, be classed as a work journey (As it is not the norm?)
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It doesn't matter SW. As Jwk pointed out incidents involving moving vehicles on public roads are excluded from RIDDOR and therefore non-reportable.
Have a look at p33 of L73 (para 95) which covers accidents involving moving vehicles. There are some incidents which are reportable but the scenario I provided above does not fall into them.
A
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If he doesent drive a company car, then this is not reportable to RIDDOR
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SW is correct in what he is saying, If a lorry driver has an accident on the highway and is injured it is reportable to RIDDOR, i.e. 24 hour stay in hospital, 3 days off work, he is an employee who is at work
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Gents, without getting into a bun fight over what is an what isn't reportable, the scenario I provided above is not reportable. Like I said, there are other types of incident which are reportable. Have a look at Para 95 onwards of L73 and you can find them there.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Did the employee have anything to do with work in his/her car ?
Does the employee get travel expenses?
Does/did the employee ever do some work at home before going to the site?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Seamus, it matters not whether he did, doesn't, or didn't.
The fact is that this type of road traffic accident is not reportable under RIDDOR.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for your advice
SW
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
jwk wrote:Hi Alex,
This is not a RIDDOR, on two counts. One, it is not arising out of work and two, it is an RTA on a pubolic road.
I wouldn't include this in my accident reports in-house either.
There is case law involving prosecution following a death in an RTA while driving home, but this was actually a prosecution about excessive working days, leading to the driver falling asleep at the wheel,
John
Hi John,
Can you provide me with details of the case law you refer to please?
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks jwk, spot on also!
My interest is I have just implemented a 'Driving at work' procedure and these cases reinforce why the company has done it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
terry556 wrote:SW is correct in what he is saying, If a lorry driver has an accident on the highway and is injured it is reportable to RIDDOR, i.e. 24 hour stay in hospital, 3 days off work, he is an employee who is at work
Terry, road traffic accidents on public roads are not reportable whoever is injured and whatever the consequences. Lorry drivers are at work, but if they are involved in RTAs it is not RIDDOR reportable. It's in Regulation 10 of RIDDOR; the only road accidents which are ever reportable are accidents involving people working at the roadside or on the carriageway, not drivers, ever. Accidents on private roads or on private land would be reportable if they led to reportable consequences such as an over 3-day or specified major injury.
This thread illustrates why a reform of RIDDOR is one of the few sensible ideas in Lord Young's 'common sense' review of H&S,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JWK - Thanks for the link, very interesting.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.