This is something we all consider when carrying out our risk assessments but something I've just found extremely difficult to try and explain. I've just been asked 'what constitutes a trip hazard?' Basically I was being asked how high does something have to be before it can be classed as a trip hazard. Not every floor in every workplace is as level or flat as marble bowling green. My wife for example can trip up over absolutely nothing, irrespective of her footwear. Some of us are unfortunate enough to have paving slabs on site, they weren't placed using state of the art lasers and have of course moved over time. Others will have painted floors were the paint may have flaked up for example. I know that the workplace regs place an absolute duty on us to have floors with no holes and not to be uneven, without slopes, etc. So when does something become a trip hazard? There must be court cases where precident has been set. HSE guidance in this area is somewhat grey in the literature I've found so far. Does anyone know of a guide to point me in the direction of? Thanks in advance.

Blue, as Kieran has said the control/understanding of why people trip is complex. However, at a simple mechanical level something called toe clearance is commonly referred as one measure of trip probability. The following is quoted from the HSE Mind Your Step training package. Quote "Toe clearance is the distance between the toe and the ground when the foot swings forward during normal walking. If there is a change in level or obstacle roughly the size of someone's toe clearance in the way, it could cause them to trip. Research suggests average toe clearance to be between 8.7 mm and 21.9 mm for a healthy, working age person. Certain people may have a lower average toe clearance than others. This includes the elderly and people with mobility difficulties. Tip: A reasonable rule of thumb is that any obstruction 10mm or higher can be considered a potential trip hazard." Endquote A very simple rule of thumb but one that might suffice for your questioner? HSL did some detailed research in this area some years ago but I cannot find the reference just now. It included some really good definitions of fall, trip, stumble etc. Perhaps someone else will have the info. hth p48

Our issue is our carparks. These are normal carparks with a reasonably well maintained surface, with no potholes. When people slip or trip in it is often down to the presence of twigs and other tree debris. At this time of the year there is a lot of this about and we can only do so much to clear it up. Most staff are perfectly able to cope with this but some seem to fall over as soon as they step on a twig or leaf. None of these has lead to a serious injury but people do get het up about it and suggest that “Health and Safety do something about it” What should we be doing? The staff are a cross-section of people with all ages (17-70) represented and rough 50:50 male-female balance. Do not suggest that I ban high heels and make everybody wear “safety shoes.”

May help http://www.cfs-law.com/tripping-hazard.html

I have to ask..... is the 20p piece flat or standing on its edge..?!!?! In truth insurers do NOT have any view as to what represents a trip hazard for CIVIL liability. The reality is that it all depends. Where the defendant prrerty owenr or simila caanot demostrate that they have robust and reasonale systems of inspections a small trip hazard may well end up with them beingheld liable. However, where there are regular inspections it may well be that a sizeable trip hazard, of some considerable size may not end up with liability for the property owner. On the basis that they had good systems in place but the hazard occured and there was no way that the defendant could have known about it or have taken action to correct before the accident occurred. Think about HGV mounting pavement, cracking slabs and trip accident occurs after they leave. Liability could be robustly defended - if there was a good inspection regime that would have picked up damage after a decent period e.g. at end of working day. Phil

20p stood up.

The likelihood of a trip is also affected by several other factors besides the unevenness of the flooring: quality and intensity of lighting, sight-lines, the activity being done (slow walk, rapid movement, carrying a bulky load), the attention being paid, footwear and the expectation of a change in level. Thus a small step in a kitchen with poor lighting and lots going on is very different to an uneven quarry floor.

Whatever the pros/cons of having a specific height as other posters have pointed out so much depends upon other factors such as location, lighting footfall etc. I think that in truth one could have different heights for different places. The footpath from car park to office door and the escape routes from fire exits with a small/low trigger (10mm?) whilst footpaths away from buildings and/or not part of major walking routes at say 20mm. An interesting discussion on this website: http://www.cfs-law.com/tripping-hazard.html I worry about getting "hung up" on whether it is Xmm or Ymm.. counterproductive? Phil