http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...nd-glasgow-west-11821439 A very sad accident, but I think the judge has misunderstood the meaning of reasonableness and forseeability.... Anyone else care to comment? For me this is a classic blocker to any attempts to inject a breath of common sense into our "H&S system". What next? A ban on pens and pencils? A prohibition on rulers? You can cause a really nasty eye injury with a rolled up newspaper mlud.... Thoughts? Steve

Of course, freelance is right but I can't help reach for my revolver every time I hear that a risk assessment has been done following an accident.

I am with Steve on this one! A sad accident but there is no way that this type of outcome would be foreseeable! The judges comments about working on the floor and long paint brushes blow any chance of health and safety being managed reasonably clean out of the water. We all have 20 20 vision in hindsight and the judge is way off the mark here IMHO!

From the little info we have here. IMO this was a very sad freak accident, however, it just proves that some accidents just happen and there's little we can do. How anybody can think that this is a foreseeable accident and pass blame is beyond me. Totally with Steve on this one.

I presume this was a civil case and any damages will be paid by the school's insurance policy, which will no doubt lessen the impact of this case. That said, it does appear to be a freak accident, which could conceivably occur with many school activities, such as cricket, football, tennis, golf etc. I agree that some accidents are not 'reasonably' foreseeable, but nonetheless are conceivable with or without the benefit of hindsight. I would like to have heard what was the defence counsel said, rather than just the claimant counsel. Not sure why they saw a need to do a risk assessment after the event, as it does appear to have done the defendant's case no good at all. I have often commented that the judiciary are often ignorant of the principles of hazards, risk, harm, foreseeability etc. Lady Justice Hale summed it up nicely on another case when she commented, "some things are nobody's fault", alluding to the fact that people are not blessed with hindsight.

Frightening judgement when linked to the foreseeability/frequency argument. On this basis I foresee the need to issue personal lightning protectors to each individual who works outdoors and chainmail gauntlets to all office workers who may get a paper cut which could lead to septicaemia.

A truly awful story and a most distressing outcome for the pupil and his family. A previous news story gave this comment in mitigation from the LA - "There is no report of any similar accident having occurred in any school in the UK, either before or since this accident. At the time it was common around the world for schoolchildren to work with pencils, pens and thin paintbrushes at floor level. The local authority maintains that prior to the accident no reasonable risk assessment would have identified any realistic risk of it occurring." I have to say I might agree with them that this wasn't an easy one to pick up, although obviously I am not aware of the full facts of the case. So where does this kind of detail appear in the HSE's new classroom risk assessment then? Thought not....

This is a truely terrible experience for all involved, the poor kid. However, just think: if before this accident happened, someone HAD foreseen the possibility & created a RA that this judge (with her hindsight) would have considered adequate. It would be up there with the conkers bonkers stories. I rather suspect the headmaster ( that everyone queued up to crucify) who insisted on eye protection whilst playing conkers, has a rather smug look on his face now.

To paraphrase Ray Rapp "...presuambly a civil case and damages will be paid by insurance comapny. This will reduce the impact/importance of this case." Not sure I understand the point here. Insurance is to provide compensation when things go wrong. Insurers rely on safety professionals to manage risk. Which includes assessing the infrequent risks that have serious consequences. Such professionals won't get it right every time - hence the reason for insurance. But I am not sure that having damages paid by an insurer should be regarded as lessening the importance or diminish the message of this case. Phil

quote=Phil Grace](SNIP) ...I am not sure that having damages paid by an insurer should be regarded as lessening the importance or diminish the message of this case. Phil

This is a very sad case indeed, I am going to take my H&S hat off and try to be objective. I do not feel that anyone could have foreseen the circumstances of this accident. It was a pure freak accident, and I feel for the other child involved, plus her family. They must have been to hell and back, hopefully the other child involved will receive the correct support to get through this. I do not feel that anyone was to blame, but because of the severe injuries caused, the injured child will require constant care for the rest of their lives. This has to be paid by someone, I feel the judge in this case made the right decision based on that fact, although I am sure there will be folk out there who disagree with me. Either way it is a very sad case indeed, and my heart goes out to all involved.

sean, I think you have called this right. At the end of the day it is the insurance company who will pay out and this is not a criminal case. So on the balance of probabilities, I believe the judge made the 'wrong' decision, but for all the right reasons...gawd bless 'im.

Yes, when I sat back and thought about it for a while, I too came to much the same conclusion as Sean, that I suspect that the judge may have been seeking to help secure the future needs of the child, and I suppose that it would be difficult to argue against that. However, As Gerry, I wonder whether this will become significant case law for the future, and indeed what effect this might have on all of us and the sensible risk debate. Is there a danger that this judgement may totally skew peoples perceptions of risk and precautions, making us even more cautious than some already are and is there a very real danger that by adopting such a position as the judge in this case has, that we could fail to see the wood for the trees i.e. that we will lose sight of the very real risks because we are being distracted by risks that we would have otherwise considered 'trivial' because of how unlikely that they were to occur. That would be 'problematic'. I wonder what the likes of the Daily Mail would have made of banning such an activity as this, PRIOR to the accident having happened? "Elf and safety gone mad?"

Yes, it does indeed show the case in a different light. (I'm not sure about your bit about 'similar activities', though, redken; the later paragraphs of the judgement say 'The pursuer did not prove the averment that prior to the accident the school had a policy that pencils were not to be used on the floor; nor did they prove an averment that in another school under the control of the defenders this policy extended to paintbrushes' (nb I may have got this wrong; concentration not so hot at this time on a Friday, though I have added to my vocab!). It seems the conclusion is that it wasn't the use of sharp ended brushes per se but the overall circumstances in which they were used (as in most incidents). 2 of the 3 'health and safety experts' came in for some heavy criticism. It may well be that the pursuer had them there to strengthen the case about risk assessment, which Judge Lady Dorrian clearly saw as not very relevant, so perhaps they weren't shown in the best light. Prior to reading the judgement I thought that although the incident (with sharp pointed paintbrushes) may have been foreseable such a serious outcome was very unlikely, and was probably far less likely than serious incidents with some other normal activities in schools. Perhaps when seen in the light of the whole activity that is not the case.

For me this case may well be a precedent in terms of the level of damages that would be awarded. When you stop and think about it this activity is done so often that we do forget that if we have some people workinhg on the floor and others moving about in the same area then the scene is ripe for an event to occurr. Clearly in this case, as reported by BBC, there was no recognition of the fact that there might be a danger and this has given the judge the opportunity to look at who is insured and clearly the school is so protected! Bob

Quick question , can Scotish court decsions influence UK, or Irish courts?

For Bob Lewis: This case will NOT set a precedent for the level of damages. That is not how it civil law works. Claims go to court for two main reasons. Either there is no agreement on liaibility, on whether the defendant employer or similar has been negligent. OR there is no agreement on the level of damages leading to what is known as a trial on quantum. The father can "seek" £2.5m in damages but what the son will receive is based on two aspects. General Damages in effect a payment for the inury. There is a book/list and loss of sight is in there, just like a broken arm, loss of finger etc. These are the Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity sums - known as PSLA. Then there are the Special Damages - these must be supported by receipts, declarations or calculations Simple examples are taxi fares to go to hospital, physical things such as articficial limbs, modified homes or vehicles etc. And an employed person will supply evidence of wages lost after the accident and up to time of trial and then supply calculations of future loss of earnings. For this unfortunate young man to receive , say £2.5M, it would be necessary to establish that he would, for exmaple, have joined the RAF, become a fast jet pilot then become a high earning commercial pilot. This may have been what he know says he would have done - the challenge is for him to prove that to the satisfaction of the courts. I can only assume that he did not satisfy the insurer concerned and that is one reason why the case has gone to court. Phil

The injured party was a CHILD, and not an adult, the teacher was acting in loci parentis (may be mispelled). The child was put doing something which resulted in the child being injured. The court found this injury was forseeable. Why should the injured party not be fully compensated for the injury, which was caused by the neglect of others?

The risk assessment was not carried out until after the injury occurred. The school was at fault for not complying with the law. The paint brush was a long thin object with a sharp point - it would (I hope) have been seen as such a hazard during the risk assessment had it been carried out prior to the work. (I know it is at school but it was still work being done).

The difficulty with this case is whether the injury was foreseeable without the benefit of hindsight. Some practitioners may have seen a risk, whilst others would not. Is the risk real or fanciful? Furthermore, are school teachers expected to have the knowledge and wherewithal of health and safety practitioners? Of course not. There are many activities at school which conceivably could lead to a serious injury, particularly in a worst case scenario. However, health and safety is not managed by a worst case scenario, but rather the probability of an adverse event occurring. I could spend a lot of time on completing risk assessments, most will not get seen by the workforce or be properly implemented - meanwhile, someone is getting seriously hurt or worse. It is a no win situation for our industry.