In the very simplest of terms, if they are on your premises, they are your responsibility. Rodger Ker

Very useful responses and a good case for us to 'wave' at any of our colleagues who take contract management lightly. Toby's question is an interesting one though and one I have thought about many times. My personal view is that when you have a contract management system in place, it will include the need to view the RA/MS for the job and, as such, should be able to highlight any obvious or significant omissions and require these to be corrected before the work starts. The main duty is on the sub-contractor and we would not be expected to go through the documentation in great detail though. Each case would of course be looked at on its own merits but I guess a manslaughter charge would be more likely for the employer.

If you employ a competent contractor why should you go through the documentation? I don't feel competent to review the documentation for the following potential subbies Landscapers, Roofers Electricians Asbestos abatement Decorators Road workers Caterers Window cleaners All of which could work on my sites Employ a competent contractor, hold a pre start meeting, ensure documentation is developed & manage the co-ordination and co-operation of activities on site.(possibly monitor the activity) Surely you could only be liable if you have influenced the work negatively or not managed the interfaces. Maybe I'm wrong but we had a subbie overturn a ride on mower where the HSE prosecuted the contractor whilst not even speaking with "us"

Three other pieces of Case Law that put this subject into perspective. R v Mara (1986) R v Swan Hunter (1982) Via Systems v Thermal Transfer (2005). if you read the resume of all four of these cases, they give a good indication of what responsibilities are. Rodger Ker

Toby No one can really answer your question definitively because it all depends on the circumstances resulting in the fatality. There are so many variables which could influence a decision by the authorities to prosecute or not, as the case may be. Whilst there are many case law examples of sub-contractors getting injured or worse, these are also judged on the individual material facts of the case - rarely are two cases exactly the same. Don't forget that more than one party may be held liable. For example, if the work was pursuant to CDM Regs then the PC will most likely be held either partially or fully responsible for the fatality. In response to NR's post, I have reviewed many SSoW from subbies, I am not an expert in all of those fields either. However, with your h&s hat on you can normally tell whether it is a well written document, ask a colleague who may be more informed and also research to some extent. I think it is about being diligent - not an expert every industry.

I am pleased that Ray has pointed out the obvious. Time and again we are posed with these sorts of questions with very little information and expected to provide a (definitive) answer. I assume that you are suggesting that the fatality resulted from the “..inadequate control measures..”? The answer as always is that it will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The case law quoted, Octel is the ‘usual suspect’ to refer to in such cases although again, the specific circumstances will determine whether that or any other case law is relevant or not. The answer to the 2 questions as others have essentially said is that “yes” depending on the circumstances the ‘hirer’ COULD be held liable, and “yes” charges of either CMCHA and/or GNM COULD proceed, but against WHICH company and WHOM is dependant on the circumstances; and by no means a ‘done deal’ (as the post at #11 sort of helps to demonstrate) Caps used for emphasis (IOSH – can we have a ‘bold’ function please?)

I have to think/deal with this issue every day as I am always interfacing with employers and their subbies and their subbies subbies, I just try and ensure everyone is covered on their responsibilities. Taking up NR's stance Surely you should review the RA and MS of subbies to ensure they account for hazards that might put YOUR employees' safety at risk. e.g. the roofers - you should ensure his RAMS include controls to prevent your employees wandering under the work at height.... landscapers - you should ensure that within the RAMS there is safe access, site routes and egress for the vehicles so they do not pose a hazard to any of your pedestrian employees.... etc JohnW

I have to think/deal with this issue every day as I am always interfacing with employers and their subbies and their subbies subbies, I just try and ensure everyone is covered on their responsibilities. Taking up NR's stance NR wrote:If you employ a competent contractor why should you go through the documentation? I don't feel competent to review the documentation for the following potential subbies Landscapers, Roofers Electricians..... Surely you should review the RA and MS of subbies to ensure they account for hazards that might put YOUR employees' safety at risk. e.g. the roofers - you should ensure his RAMS include controls to prevent your employees wandering under the work at height.... landscapers - you should ensure that within the RAMS there is safe access, site routes and egress for the vehicles so they do not pose a hazard to any of your pedestrian employees.... etc JohnW But that's not what was asked for by the poster. Of course you would ensure your staff are safe!!