See this case where a school was sued when a pupil was hit with a golf club during a school golf lesson. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-18878035

I think that it is arguable that having 20 odd teenagers waving golf clubs about is unsafe.........


However what REALLY worries me is the quote at the very end of the story............."accidents will happen"!

Without the full facts, all we have is speculation. Perhaps the basis of the civil claim was flawed?
The claim would appear to have been based (and failed) on a test of 'inadequate supervision' (according to the article) when perhaps the design of the task was flawed, i.e. inadequate space, poor task design, not following curriculum guidelines, lack of instruction, etc.).
On the limited information available, I'm not entirely comfortable with the line quoted by the EA.

I'm reminded of the case where a teacher was held liable (I don't recall whether this was civil/criminal or both) for setting up a "figure of 8" running exercise in a gym with primary kids. The risk of collision was of course inevitable and I recall serious injury resulted.

Exactly. And also exactly the reason "Zero Harm" initiatives are flawed.

Customer in a retail store is shopping and drops a grape (or anything else, the product is irrelevant) from their basket onto the floor. 30 seconds later a different customer slips on such a grape. - defendable civil claim = Yes. But it is an accident and please explain how you could prevent that from happening.



Have to disagree with you there, we don't aspire to target Zero as we know it is not a realistic goal (you could argue an impossible goal). We only set SMART objectives.

There are many basis of safety management: Control of hazards so far as reasonably practicable, minimisation of accidents / lost time etc., protecting business reputation, minimsation of civil claims etc.

Of course you could prevent the grape accident (I'm not saying you should, but you could) - by packaging such items robustly so that they can't fall out and can't be slipped on.

Of course this accident could have been prevented and forseen. If you give teenage children golf clubs it is inevitable that eventually someone will get hit with one. The only way to ensure that no teenager ever does anything a bit daft or just thoughtless would be one-to-one supervision. Hardly reasonably practicable. Just as when you play a game of rugby people will get injured unless we change the rules and make it non-contact. Preventing children from doing sport or PE would reduce any school's accident rate very significantly. Stopping them playing in the playground would remove another huge chunk.

This is where the concept of 'tolerable risk' comes in and that of risk benefit analysis. By encouraging children to be active and play sports etc when you we reduce the risk of obesity/heart disease etc in later life. So we do our best to reduce the risk of serious injury and put in place proportionate control measure but we also need to allow children to be children and not wrap them up in cotton wool.

Zero accidents? In my field (prevention of occupational skin disease) this is merely a utopian dream! Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of the real facts.

Everyone's skin is unique to them. Some chemicals will affect a large number of people. Others maybe one person in a million, some even fewer. We have to use chemicals as part of everyday life as well as within a workplace. So it is inevitable that at some stage someone will react to something that we are using but that is generally considered harmless. Banning exposure to all chemicals is simply impossible.

For example, we need water to wash in. Yet there is a few people who will develop what is known as acquagenic urticaria, an allergic reaction to water on the skin. It is rare, but it does exist. We cannot yet predict who might develop such a reaction, so if we are to achieve zero 'accidents' we would have to ban all exposure to water for every single worker!

What we can do is to attempt to identify and 'quantify' the hazards, then assess exposure, the probability that there is sufficient exposure to that hazard that damage will occur, and the action needed to reduce this to an acceptable level.

Chris

Sorry but I agree with the judge, you cannot expect to see every child at every minute. What stops someone throwing a ruler in a class room when the teacher is talking to another pupil.

the report fails to state whether the injured pupil did anything wrong or if the child who had the club was at fault so we can presume all day long.

I do agree that bills should be paid if the work cannot be carried out until the age of 18.

Some interesting answers. I am staggered that many safety professionals cannot distinguish between "goals / aims" and "targets". This is a basic management concept.

So - a GOAL of zero accidents. Fine. A TARGET of zero? Nah. A target of reducing accidents by 20% - fine. Note the difference!

Jake, I'm with you - I can't stand all this 'zero accidents' mantra, it is a form of brainwashing. Indeed, some poor souls even believe it is possible!

Excellent - ban paper. No more risk assessments, forms etc! I am out of a job and can retire. Hurrah!

It is Friday isn't it?