Not RIDDOR - unfortunate accident entirely linked to the weather conditions prevailing at the time.

I think the 'picking up' of the member of staff is a red herring personally. Rather than being seen as a potential admission of liability, surely it would be seen as a 'caring employer' ensuring their employee was safe and received the necessary medical attention during the inclement weather?

Hi
I don't see it as either i.e. not reportable.

I agree with other postings - the picking up using 4X4 has no bearing on liability in my view. Either criminal or civil.

However, there was no mention of exactly where the accident occured. If this incident occured in say the car park attached to the premises or on footpaths surrounding the employwr's premises then their is (potentially) clear liability under the Occupiers Liability Act and also in negligence... what would the reasonable employer have done? Would they have cleared snow/ice, gritted paths etc.

Loads of case law on what consitutues the actions of a reasonable employer in these circumstances.

Phil

No, because clearly you did, since they were in company-provided transport

It's not clear in the original post exactly how the actual incident relates to the picking up in the 4x4. Because of this it's impossible to say if the company might have either criminal or civil liability.

Scenario 1 - employee slips on pavement outside her house while walking to the vehicle - IMHO no liability

Scenario 2 - employee slips while actually getting into or out of 4X4 - possible liability.

Either way it's not as clear cut as some have said as we don't know enough details.

If the employee was traveling from home to a place of work when they incurred the injury then unless it was somehow work related then it is not reportable. Was they in discomfort after the incident?

The question I would pose is what happened to the employee when they arrived at work. I,e was they looked at by a trained first aider etc, tasks given or was they taken straight to A&E after being in continued discomfort. Look at the time period involved from incident to going to A&E and the tasks they did, as it is not 100% sure if the fracture took place because of the slip whilst they where traveling into work?!

If nothing happened to the employee when they arrived at work whilst they were complaining of discomfort then you may want to tighten this area up!

Ray - the reason it has so many responses is because the original scenario is vague.

When I first read it I thought the accident had happened first and so the company had sent a vehicle to pick the person up. Now I read it as the accident happened at some stage during the "picking up" process. Of course I don't know which is right.

I agree it's unlikely to be RIDDOR but we simply don't have the facts. The determining factor as you know isn't about being "at work", it's about "arising out of or in connection with work". What if there was a defect in the step on the 4x4 which caused the person to slip while they were getting in? What if someone else closed the door on their foot? Certainly the civil liability question is now far less clear cut I think even if the RIDDOR one is not.

Not enough information to decide IMHO.

But:



So one person says there is no duty of care, and one says there clearly is a duty of care. Personally, I think it more likely that there is a duty of care, and I'm quite surprised that so many people are quick to assert there's absolutely no duty of care when an employee is on the way to work, even when company-owned transport is in use.

If an employee phoned in and said "Due to X Y Z circumstances I believe it is dangerous for me to attempt to come into work" and the company said "Nonsense, you come in to work or else", and the employee is subsequently injured (or killed - say their car is washed into a river when they try and negotiate a flooded bridge) on the way, are you all certain the company has no liability?

What if the person phones in "due to the floods I can't get to work", the company sends a car, that car is washed into the river killing the driver and employee. Still no liability for the passenger because they weren't at work, merely on the way to work?

This is as clear cut as it can get even with a 'vague' (I'm not sure it is that vague just people trying to extrapoloate too much!) opening message.

Heather Collins correctly points out it has nothing to do with being in work. RIDDOR Guide P.20-21 clearly decribes 'arising out of in connection to work' with 3 good examples of how this should be applied.
There is no mention of defective vehicle, damaged step, the poster states that the IP slipped and fell in the ice..full stop!

Not connected to her work or arising out of it. Additionally even if she had slipped on the step climbing into the 4x4 if there was nothing wrong with the step, no defect present and it was a genuine slip then that too would NOT be reportable.

See page 21 (paragrahs 34 a,b,c) and the good examples given!

Ta.

All the information is there for me.

Not Reportable - unfortunate (as always) but not reportable.

Not on the premises and not in connection with work so a) no liability and b) not reportable.

If anything this just muddies the waters KAJ from the original question as your example is clearly RIDDOR and Clearly you are liable for your car-park!

Your IP was on your carpark you said m8 - ie liable if defective (forget RIDDOR).