Hi Billy,

I've had a couple of similar cases to this one. The first was when someone fell on stairs coming back from lunch leading to 2 weeks absence and the second when someone else fell on a flat internal walkway coming back from lunch leading to 3 weeks absence.

In both instances I did manage to speak to someone helpful on the reporting line and the given opinion was that unless there was

- a defect in the premises such as inadequate lighting or
- a poorly maintained floor surface (raised tiles, ripped carpet etc), or
- a defect in any footwear we'd provided for work tasks

then it wasn't covered under RIDDOR as the injury didn't arise out of or in connection with work DESPITE the fact that they were on work premises.

Regards,
Puds

Your boss is incorrect in as far as "..this is NOT reportable as it was not part of his duties as he is employed to do". That someone isn't employed to go to and from the loo is a fatuous argument that holds little or no merit.

Your position of "..anyone who enters the premises to carry out their duties is covered under Riddor" isn't necessarily entirely correct either; depending on what you mean. YOU are responsible for reporting injuries and deaths of YOUR employees and people NOT at work, e.g. customers and visitors, where the injury 'arises from work'. Employees of ANOTHER employer are 'covered' under RIDDOR but it is for THEIR employer to make the report.

However, to try and answer your question "So in summary, is a reportable incident reportable if they are at work 9 to 5 or at the machine they were employed to use". NO, or at least not necessarily. It depends on whether the incident or injury was "Arising out of or in connection with work". Rather than regurgitate the whole regs here, you might want to have a look at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l73.pdf from para 34 onwards; this should hopefully enlighten both you and your manager about the reporting requirements. In essence I tend to regard the definition as being whether the employer or occupier (depending on the type of report) had or should have had any control over the cause of the accident; if so it is likely to be reportable.

So you boss MIGHT be right that it isn't reportable, but not for the reason he has given; it depends on the circumstances of HOW he came to break his ankle. If he has tripped over a trailing cable or slipped on a patch of oil etc etc then YES this is reportable; as a major injury.

This sort of question does of course highlight the problem with using accidents, LTI and RIDDOR reports as a KPI; it drives reporting 'underground'.

Very interesting debate this one given the amount of IMO 'silly' RIDDOR questions that do pop up on here.
This one, again IMO, splits the H&S professionals more than any other without falling into the silly category as there could be an argument both ways.
Not withstanding whats already been said above which are all rounded reasoned comments there is a train of thought that if 'it' happens on the premises (it being the accident in this case) then by location it is of course in connection with work if that is the persons normal place of work at that time - not as specific as standing next to machine A as that would be too prescriptive but the entire premises.
Look at the test for negligence - duty of care owed (employee), duty of care breached (accident), occurent loss (injury) - we have a case - regardless of material defect in most cases.
Now obviously this is an aside to is it RIDDOR or not but perhaps the definition 'in connection with work' needs testing and case law may be the way forward as to what is and is not in scope of this sentence.
I genuinely believe it can be argued either way at the moment and cannot point to case law to help ( there may be some I am not familiar with).

Depends on your driver also as has been stated - if its your stats ie reportables or civil claims - the fact that something is a RIDDOR or not makes not an iota of difference to a civil claim.

I believe the current situation allows you to massage the event either way to suit as long as you can justify your reasoning - sometimes we can get too hung up on RIDDOR, parking the fact its a legal obligation for one minute and we have to assume one always wants to do the right thing - consider all your facts for the accident of concern, is it reporting for reportings sake, just to be sure, something National Brittania would really be interested in - really, likely to result in an inspection, a learning opportunity, etc etc etc

Its not as simple as report to be on the safe side as this adds no value and muddies the national stats but without absolute clarity around these details we will get all sorts of answers and interpretations of your straight forward question.

@ Damelfc, the ACOP already (to a certain cloudy degree) directs us to consider the 3 key factors in determining if the accident arose out of in connection to work (para 38), I personally find these acceptable in all but the most unlikely scenario (and certainly in the OPs example it should be very clear for them to decide).

@ DP I too haven’t heard of a standalone prosecution for failure to report a RIDDOR but a year or 2 ago a certain supermarket major was prosecuted for failing to report a couple of RIDDORs in a bundle off the back of an accident investigation.. (the unreported RIDDORs were not connected to the accident nor the same type of hazard, it just came to light in their investigations). Also every LA will tell you to report to be on the safe side, I have never come across a LA inspector who has said anything different!