Graham, The management regulations only require you to manage significant risks. So for where I am people carry out this activity all the time, however I do not consider it a risk, my assessment, well I believe the likelihood is low and the severity also reasonably low, also contols are adequate hand rails, grip on stairs etc. Job done.

I agree - the risks do not lie in the activity but in the location and the people - If you are asking a complete drongo to make a hot cup of tea then carry it across a workplace covered in slip and trip hazards you might end up with an accident - but the cause of the accident won't be based in the tea making action of your work but in the workplace in general, something you should risk assess. So no to tea making risk assessment, yes to assessing the risks in a workplace.

Thanks JJ Prendergast That's exaclty what I wanted to know. Don't know how I missed it reading through L21 (Hindsight bias). It is a rather nice turn of phrase as well. Thanks again.

When you are at work and in a paid break the act of making a cup of tea with boiling water is not a domestic act but a work related act because you are at work - the risk assessment area is another point Boiling water is a high risk irrespective of what anybody says as is crossing the road which is another day to day activity and on occasion I have seen people sending in a sick note because they were scalded at work Its a fine line but if a claimant has a good legal brief you will wish that you had controlled any boiling water at your undertaking properly as justice or common sense does not apply in a court and its in a court that you have to defend yourself and the point re 5 people is another 'opt out' that does not stand up as U only need 1 person to bring a claim against U not 5!

In my working experience, every employer I have ever worked for have had adequate welfare facilities for rest & tea making etc. SO if someone were to get scolded by hot water its likely to be caused by accidental dropping of full kettles/cups etc or people bumpling into each other. To me that could just as easily happen in a domestic situation. There by arguably being 'routine activities associated with life in general' To me the risk of scalding only becomes 'significant' if kettles/hot water boilers are defective or unsuitable, other welfare facilities are seriously defective or other employees are skylarking in the kitchen area (vicarious liability) The other problem is the definition of 'significant risk' within a workplace - a somewhat subjective opinion. Risk, assessing tea making etc is in my view not required in most workplaces (with the exception of places where young people/children or mentally ill people, violent prisoners etc are present) Safely making a cup of tea is a reasonable life skill that I would expect from all adults in normal employment. I find risk assessments about making tea etc and similar activities to be insulting and condescending to fellow employees. It has been this constant creep of over zealous application of risk assessment and the 'warm and cuddly' approach to h&s, that turns many people off effective management and involvement in h&s and has left h&s with the image that it has in the eyes of many.

Blue and JohnW, using that reasoning we should expect to see every employer recording the results of risk assessments of being hit by lightning in the yard, struck by a meteorite, spontaneously combusting, suffering a heart attack when somebody creeps up behind them and says boo, being shot in an armed robbery to steal paper clips, paper cuts turning septic etc. Let's be sensible here. There is a grey dotted line to be drawn between the ludicrous and being reasonable and I would expect a competent H&S practitioner to know where that line is for their own circumstances.

Surely the 'yes but what if . . ' is the bit covered by civil liability and therefore the purpose of insurance, for those very unlikely events not covered by the statutory requirement to assess 'significant' and 'foreseeable' risk arising from the undertaking. As discussed, the legal need to assess is the main driver, aand the objective is not to allow undertakings to create risk and therefore pose harm. Trivial and 'general life risks' are excluded. As are totally 'unforeseeable' or uncontrollable events, although the goal posts do move with case law on this. We should resist the extension of the legal parameters by worrying about civil claims over the occasional trivial event actually injuring someone. I know that sounds a bit heartless, but it's business. Trying to manage H&S by protecting from civil action (injury) rather than real risk and potential prosecution, is why we are in this difficult place now of trying to cover 'everything' and doing the profession no favours.

A good example is using stairs. This is a life skill so does not need to be assessed unless the work activity adds to it. So an assessment would be needed when carrying a box of copy paper up the stairs.

Just been looking for the test case and I cant find it, where the judge threw out a civil case where there was no risk assessment for opening a gate - cant find it anywhere - does anyone have it - it may help this thread. It was a Scottish matter.

Oh No it would not!

RedKen seems pretty adamant that carrying a box of copier paper up/dpwn stairs is not something that needs a risk assessment. I wonder what his response would be following a fall that results in an injury and thence a claim. If the stairs were free of any defect then the attention of claimant's solicitors would turn to the task or activity. They would want to know about the risk assessment, there would be questions about the assessment of the risk, the consideration of possible control actions. Was there a lift in the building - and if so how come people were allowed to carry paper up/down stairs? If there wasn't a lift had other options been considered? I could go on but I am not convinced that it is as simple as "No risk assessment required". Phil

I would do a manual handling assessment for carrying a box of paper up a flight of stairs. If we are talking about 1 box that could be carried easily with one hand so allowing the person to use the important safety feature ie. the hand rail I don't think I would be recording any significant findings. If this was not possible I would be supplying a manual handling aid - eg. a bag or similar. Things don't have to be complicated but if I chose to walk up stairs with my hands full of shopping that my problem. If my employer expects me to walk up a set of stairs with my hand full of work related material I think its completely different.

Using the boiler example, I wouldn't risk assess it - that is, write a formal RA - but we require our staff to carry out formal workplace inspections (where they record their findings) quarterly: so whilst I wouldn't expect them to examine the boiler, I would expect them to record (and deal with) workplace hazards which could lead to an accident after they have made their cup of tea (trailing cables, etc). When I carry out inspections, I will check contractor records to ensure the boiler has received regular service. I think we can get into the dangerous area of risk assessing everything, and can miss the 'big' stuff. As others have said, you need to take into account the task and the person involved - a tea making exercise involving someone with limited mental capacity would require a RA, I wouldn't think so in an organisation where you would hope the adults can make 'sensible' (whatever they are!) decisions.

As usual there is a split between those that apply common sense and those that don't. I don't need to state what camp I am in as I have been very vocal about it for years. RA's are required by H&S legislation and that is what I advise on, so comments about defending civil claims meansnothing when we are discussing the requrements of H&S law. H&S law does not require assessing a cup of tea and therefore I don't. Ah but what about the civil claims I hear you cry. Well if someone wants to make a claim becuase they burnt their hand making a cup of tea then let them take their chances. Hopefully it would be thrown out of court and if it wasn't then tough. Let them be successful. But I'm not going to sacrifice my professional integrity by assessing a cup of tea. I'm more interested in stopping fatals and majors most days than worrying about cups of tea and that suits me just fine. I can sleep easy at night knowing I live in the real world and that my clients respect my advice as sensible and pragmatic. I happily distance myself from all you clip board lot who seem to live for unecessary paperwork.

Guess I'm with Clairel And 'no' I'm not Clairel signed in under a different name. As for civil claims solicitors requesting copies of all risk assessments etc .... Well they wouldn't they - afterall they have a vested interest in winning the case for their client i.e. a financial share of any compensation paid out by the respective insurance company. Whether not having a risk assessment for a low risk/everyday activity is a breach of a criminal duty or sufficient to succeed in a civil claim is a totally different matter. I'm so glad I got out of this side of h&s, dealing with this end of h&s As per Clairel, I would be more bothered about missing a major/fatal. Can't see the wood for the trees, comes to mind.

To comment: RayRapp: Totally agree with your comment re what claimant's solicitors seek - And that lack of/absence of a Risk Assessment doesn't automatically imply guilt. But lack of an RA won't help (see below) DavidB: I don't think it is some much an indication of insurer's reluctance to challenge rather an outcome of the law not being 100% prescriptive but "reasonably practicable". Thus, in the absence of a RA one has then to justify why there isn't one in existence. Puts employer even more on back foot in my opinion. AND I now see that we have an accident on the stair scenario in the posting "RIDDOR - Late Reporting". I note that investigation of any defects in stairs are in hand. I wonder what activity was being undertaken - or was it simply "using the stairs"? Also wonder if there was a risk assessment...?! Phil

Way you go Claire ,thought you would pop up on this one...You do brighten my days. I can't possible comment anymore on this thread..it would'nt be pleasent reading Thanks again claire for bringing your words of wisdom to the table