I have just received a letter from a well known personal injury specialist regarding an accident. I have been asked to review and comment on the claim. The letter lists copies of documents which are requested, including - 'post-accident re-assessment required by regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.'

I am not aware of any legal requirement, MHSWR or other, to complete a re-assessment following an accident or incident? I accept that it may be good practice to review any RA following an accident, but this would depend on the circumstances and cause. I believe this is a Bloomer by the solicitor but would be interested in your comments.

Ray

All accident claim letters have to follow a standard format as a part of the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims under the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions

Refer to:-

http://www.justice.gov.u...ls/prot_pic.htm#IDAIYG5B


http://www.justice.gov.u...s/protocols/prot_pic.htm


http://www.justice.gov.u...civil/menus/protocol.htm

The evidence for review could be in two places.

It could be a written amendment to the risk assessment itself, recording the occurrence and the decision in the light of that occurrence.

It could be recorded within the report of the incident itself.

I guess there is also a third place - the minutes of the Safety Committee meeting where the incident was reviewed.

Ray

If I put my cynical head on then would it not be fair to state that if a person replying to such a request for information duly submitted a pre and post accident RA; and the post accident RA showed additional control measures, then would/could the personal injury specialist not attempt to use this information as a means indicating that the original RA was neither suitable and/or sufficient???

Steve

Steve

Yes, I suspect your assumption is correct. Sometimes it is better not to have any documentary evidence with which these ambulance chasers can pick to bits. I think it is a case of damned if you do...

This is one of the unfortunate consequences of Reg 3 of the management regs. It has taken risk assessment away from the H&S professionals, who developed it as a tool to manage H&S better and has given it to the lawyers who can use it as a stick to beat claims out of defendants. If Lord Young had wanted to do something useful he could have looked at this issue but it was obviously too subtle for him.
Essentially the lawyers are trying to frighten you into give into the claim. They always do this. The risk assessment is not really relevant in 99% of cases. For a claim to rely on the risk assessment they would have to establish that
1) the assessment was not’ suitable and sufficient’
2) and that this is what caused the injury which is being claimed for.
You cannot be sued just for not having a risk assessment.

Ray, take a look at this month's SHP which has an interesting article on this topic.

Thanks Steve, that has been done. However, the client has asked me to review matters from an independent h&s perspective.

Stuff4blokes, I presume you mean the Michael Appleby article? Read it but it was essentially looking at the roles of the regulator and law enforcement with regards to the provision of documents etc. I would be much more interested to learn what a third party such as a solicitor for a personal injury claim is entitled or should be provided in terms of documentation?