Rank: New forum user 
|
Could I please ask for opinions as to whether the following scenario should be classed as a work-related accident (and therefore be reportable under RIDDOR):
Home-based field worker using vehicle provided by employer parked car at side of road to get out to go to buy a sandwich on the way to an appointment at a work site. He twisted his knee when getting out of car. He has been able to work and has not had to have time off. However he is unable to do his normal job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi there
I think this incident is work related but as he has had no time off it is unlikely to be reportable under RIDDOR - unless there is some major injury involved like a dislocation...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Reed21854 wrote:Hi there
I think this incident is work related but as he has had no time off it is unlikely to be reportable under RIDDOR - unless there is some major injury involved like a dislocation...
I think you overlooked:
Sam wrote: However he is unable to do his normal job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not arising 'out of or in connection with work', IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is work related, he was enroute to an appointment the place of the accident is immaterial it is the fact that he was injured getting out of the car (his normal place of work). It is not reportable under RIDDOR however as he has not had time off or broken any bones. Simply record the accident in the company's accident book and let life go on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Deffo work related IMO, however if it were a side trip for personal reasons - Activities neither necessitated by the travel nor in the interest of the company, it wouldnt be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It appears to be work related as the vehicle was associated with the workplace in the scenario. I am not sure wheter I would report it though, I would proably call the hotline and get their view first.
As far as reportable is concerned, the injured person need not necessarily be off work for more than 3 days. RIDDOR would still apply if he were unable to fulfill his normal range of duties (i.e. they are put on light duties).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
bob shillabeer wrote:This is work related, he was enroute to an appointment the place of the accident is immaterial it is the fact that he was injured getting out of the car (his normal place of work). It is not reportable under RIDDOR however as he has not had time off or broken any bones. Simply record the accident in the company's accident book and let life go on.
This advice is not correct. See Guidance to Riddor - paragraph 58.
'An Over 3 Day Injury is one which .......... or unable to do the full range of the normal duties for more than 3 days'.
You don't have to have time off or broken bones for an injury to be reportable. This section of RIDDOR is often overlooked. I have reported a number of cases to HSE where people have been been at work on 'restricted duties' like this. I have also discussed with my local HSE Insepctor and they would expect such cases to be reported.
If you are going to provide advice on here - you should really make sure you get it right !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Its Friday so a silly question is called for.
If a RTA injury is not reportable under RIDDOR, why should an injury, that, appears to have happened during a break from work exiting a motor vehicle be reportable?
My understanding has always been that a vehicle is only a workplace when on a companies property except in the case of the NO Smoking regulations which then included a vehicle as a workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
What about an employee who has to stop on the journey and leave the vehicle to change the spare on a company vehicle?
Clean the windscreen, or clean the lights, or something similar,
Are these work related actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The public highway as an everyday workplace? The HSE would say most definitely not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
seamusosullivan wrote:What about an employee who has to stop on the journey and leave the vehicle to change the spare on a company vehicle?
Clean the windscreen, or clean the lights, or something similar,
Are these work related actions?
Or speeding, drink driving, using a hand held mobile telephone...................
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A few years ago, I posed the question of a driver who lost his arm in a RTA which happened in the EU whilst travelling in a UK registered vehicle. I was informed at the time that this injury although life changing was not reportable under RIDDOR although, the vehicle was obviously his work space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Taylor I don't give advise on this forum aoart from advising people to get the info needed direct from those who are concerned such as HSe. I am not insured to give such advise and only give my opinion based upon my knowledge and experience. The fact that this has been linked with RTAs is also incorrect as the vehicle concerned was stationary at the time with the ignition turned off (hopefully anyway). HSE always say report it but they often then discard it as unecessary and don't follow up anyway. RIDDOR is simply a method of collecting info for the development of statistics so trivial reports are often not included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It is a good question and has solicited a number of responses. Incidentally, no one should be criticised for giving an honest opinion, whether they are right or wrong. It is a public forum designed to promulgate a discussion - not to decide who is the smartest.
As I see it there are two issues here: a) was the injury work-related and b) is it RIDDOR reportable? I believe the injury was in principle arising from or in connection with his work as he was en route to an appointment, albeit it is a moot point whether he was on his lunch break or whatever. Not sure why it would be reportable if he has no time off work, but not an area I am overly familiar with and I don't wish to start reading the RIDDOR Regs at this time - going down the pub.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray why did you mention the pub, gave me a thirst so I will have to struggle through the half a mill of snow outside and trudge the 200 yards to the club and spend some of the money I get from being a H&S professional (rather my pention), so get my coat scarf, gloves and ski boots out and struggle over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote: Not sure why it would be reportable if he has no time off work, but not an area I am overly familiar with and I don't wish to start reading the RIDDOR Regs at this time.
Scroll up for the answer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Not needs to be off work for more than 3 days, go direct to hospital or suffer a major injury as defined by regs. Just log the incident and if he takes 3 days off relating to incident then report it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I suggest that he was at work and therefore potentially reportable.
It is a common misconception that the duty to report an over 3 day injury is confined to people who have time off work. This is not the case. The requirement is in effect, whether they have had over 3 days off work, OR they have been unable to do their normal duties for over 3 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I believe this is work related as he was on his way to a work appointment, using a company car, which would fall under the PUWER regs. Also, the fact that he was getting some refreshment is irrelevant, as he's entitled to a break and to have something to eat.
I would record this in the accident book, and do think it's reportable under RIDDOR as he is unable to perform "HIS NORMAL DUTIES".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:It is a good question and has solicited a number of responses. Incidentally, no one should be criticised for giving an honest opinion, whether they are right or wrong. It is a public forum designed to promulgate a discussion - not to decide who is the smartest.
RayRapp - I fully agree - no one whould be criticised for giving an honest opinion. Much of H&S is about opinion - how to manage shades of gray and all that. Definately not about right and wrong. We are all entitled to our opinion.
However, when it comes to understanding regulations or ACOPs / guidance then a lot of that is written in specific detail. If we are going to quote what people should / should not do in follow up to something then we need to have a good understanding of the regulations - especially when we are telling them just what to do. This had happened a few times in this thread and what has been said is not in line with the regulations / guidance (i.e. not needing to report when person has not had lost time). This is simply wrong - in my opinion (see Para 58 of Riddor guidance).
As an 'industry' we have come in for quite a bit of stick recently - a lot being made of the 'competence' debate. If we are going to give advice (and Bob - my reading of what you tell the guy to do - i.e. not report it - is as clearly a piece of advice as anyone could give - in my opinion). A lot has been made of H & S professionals telling people what they need to do - based on regulation. If we are going to do that - then we need to know our stuff. Its not about being smart - its about being competent !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
adamcymru wrote:Not needs to be off work for more than 3 days, go direct to hospital or suffer a major injury as defined by regs. Just log the incident and if he takes 3 days off relating to incident then report it.
Please read Para 58 of RIDDOR guidance - not being able to bo normal job for more than 3 days is reportable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Was he at work, is going to lunch or to buy lunch being at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Again this sort of question does crop up on a regular basis. In my experience of reporting these types of incident the following questions/ information are asked/required.
- If the vehicle was being used in "works time" then it is usually considered as a workplace.
- Was the person at "work"? From the information given it would suggest that they were on their way to an appointment (presumably this is within their contract of employment and job description) which is more than likely to be considered in work time.
- as previously suggested if the person is not able to fulfill their normal duties for more than 3 days after the day of the incident (whether they are at work or not) then it is likely that this would fall within the requirements of the RIDDOR criteria.
I have had to report a number of incidents which have occured on public roads to our community based staff and if there is a case where I am not totally sure (even after 25 years of safety work it isn't always clear whether to report or not) then I will actually ring the HSE Inspector directly (I will not contact the infoline as they are usually more confused than I am). If the incident is reportable and the organisation does not report it (based on the assumption it isn't reportable) then the organisation itself may face enforcement action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bingo!
Thanks Billibob for a clear sensible explanation. And I support you completely.
RIDDOR doesn't have such clear-cut boundaries as some think and this case is a good example. Work these cases through sensibly and fully as and when they arise but always be mindful of the consequences of failure to report. Watch also for intermittent or delayed absences - a similar trap for the unwary.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Taylor
I did not mention you by name but clearly you were able to deduce who I was referring to. Many areas of the law are not 'black and white' and require some degree of interpretation. It is all very well to point out that someone is incorrect, no problem, but I do draw the line at chastising them as well...
This is a discussion forum where we need to encourage people to participate, we all make mistakes from time to time - even moi!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No time off, no broken bones, no development of occupational illness, record it as an accident and leave it there. I'm bemused how some poeple could deem it could be PUWER, which part of the car was found to be at fault?
Was it not his knee he twisted?
Bizarre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
safetyinspector2009 wrote:No time off, no broken bones, no development of occupational illness, record it as an accident and leave it there. I'm bemused how some poeple could deem it could be PUWER, which part of the car was found to be at fault?
Was it not his knee he twisted?
Bizarre.
I didn't say the car was at fault. That's your interpretation of what I wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Billibob
On my way to a meeting i stop at a cafe and buy a sandwich, at which point i slip and strain my knee, am i at work, No Im in a cafe. If I stop my work car, to go and get a sandwich, am i at work, NO im going to get a sandwich so i am not at work. Unless my job is buying sandwiches, good job then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I can see this potentially being work related as on way to appointment but it could equally be considered a lunch break - so not work activity IMO.
Again I agree he doesn't have to be off work to be reportable as he couldn't continue 'normal duties'. can't see how PUWER applies as not do to failure poor maintenance of work equipment. I can't see from information so far how he twisted knee due to work equipment or how employer could have avoided.
I have had a few of these that could be borderline and usually find a call to HSE helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sam,
I am unable to give a definitive answer to your question but the following might help:
i. was it an "accident"?
Namely:
i. Was there was a discreet, identifiable incident? and
ii. That was external to the deceased? and
iii. Which had unintended consequences for the injured party?
If the answer is YES, did the accident arise "out of or in connection with work". Namely, did the individual's action of stopping to get a sandwich constitute part of his/her work activities?
If the answer to both questions is YES, and it meets all the other RIDDOR criteria, the incident is likely to be reportable under RIDDOR.
I hope this helps (or at least I hope it does not confuse matters).
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sorry, said deceased and not injured party. Apologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sorry, said deceased and not injured party. Apologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Good Lord, has he know died? Whilst we were prevaricating about RIDDOR the poor blighter has gawn to the pearly gates - definitely reportable know! :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
RayRapp wrote:Good Lord, has he know died? Whilst we were prevaricating about RIDDOR the poor blighter has gawn to the pearly gates - definitely reportable now! :(
Well, only once you h&s professionals resolve the question of whether it was in the course of his employment :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Having been the one who got all uppity earlier on in the thread and getting told off for being a bit direct in some of my posts (apologies to anyone if I've upset them - just my passionate belief that we should really know our stuff before commenting on anything !) does it really matter? Clearly it does to the person that posted the question.
But really - are the consequences of reporting or not reporting this one going to be any different?
Would it be better to focus our time / energy on something that may be a real benefit to the H&S effort we are all passionate about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think in a case like this you have to carefully work through the exact circumstances and judge for your self on the "arising out of or in connection with work" bit. Make a judgement - record it when you record the accident in your accident book and move on.
What really bothers me about the answers to this question is the number of my fellow professionals who seem to think the IP has to actually have time off for an accident to be reportable under RIDDOR..... So an employee breaks his leg at work and you bring him in on crutches to simply sit in the office even though he can't do any part of his normal job. Reportable? Of course it is. No wonder we have under-reporting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Heather Collins wrote:
.......
What really bothers me about the answers to this question is the number of my fellow professionals who seem to think the IP has to actually have time off for an accident to be reportable under RIDDOR.....
Me too
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.