There isn't any

But implicit statutory duty to check that complying with duties under HSWA and that risk assessment and arrangements remain appropriate.

A bit tangential maybe but if an organisation is having regular, similar incidents and is not recognising a pattern nor finding out what's wrong, could that be deemed a breach of duty of care (negligence) towards the next person who gets hurt?

At the risk of teaching granny to suck eggs... there are broadly 4 common law duties on employers in this context: a duty to employ competent fellow employees, a duty to provide a safe place of work; a duty to provide safe plant and equipment, and; a duty to provide a safe system of work.

It could reasonably be argued that monitoring is a constitutes an integral part of any system which is able to demonstrate that it continues to meet these obligations (even if the monitoring only identifies that everything continues to be tickety boo). Similarly, if an organisation was to fail to undertake accident investigations, how otherwise could they demonstrate that they have taken reasonable care in the provision of, say, a safe place of work if they fail to evaluate incidents and accidents with a view to minimising the risk of their recurrence?

It was in 2001 when the HSC had "consulted" whether to have a a new duty to investigate
accidents, dangerous occurrences and diseases, after a a discussion document (DD) in 1999. Unfortunately, the DD is no longer available on the HSE Website


http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd169.pdf

There is the implied duty inn the management regs. Review RA post accident.

How can you do this without investigating the cause. Hence why solicitors will always request pre and post accident RA's when dealing with PI claims - in case you have changed them - by definition liability attaches if you have made significant changes effecting the incident.

Where did the myth come from that there is no duty to investigate??? HSE may deny any knowledge - but hat is just their ignorance. They are not responsible for enforcing it so it doesn't exist? (Sounds like the myth busters)

Social Security Claims and Payments Regs 1979...Regulation 25(1). : “Every employer shall take reasonable steps to investigate the circumstances of every accident of which notice is given to him or to his servant or agent in accordance with the provisions of regulation 24…”

The purpose of the investigation may seem odd by the standards of today but the law is still in place. (Although never enforced / no prosecutions to the best of my knowledge)....

Why are some talking of statutory provisions when the question is about common law?

Look at Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English [1937] as a typical example of what is now legislation under sect 2 Hasawa. This case decided the employer responsibilty forr a Safe System of work. I am not going to do the rest of the task however. You need to look at both the dicta and obiter in detail to see the needs for investigation.

Bob

So there is an obligation to ‘investigate’ but the Social Security regs make it clear that this is nothing to do with H&S and finding out the causes of an accident. It is to do with making sure any claim for incapacity benefit relating to a workplace accident is not fraudulent. That is all.
As for lawyers and their letters well then they imply in these letters that if you don’t have a risk assessment for every single little thing, then you are in breach of the law and their client has a case. This legal bunk because a) for a claim to succeed they would have to establish that the lack a risk assessment is the cause of the injury and anyway since last year you can no longer sue for a breach of statutory duty in relation to H&S law.

The specific answer to your question is that there is no explicit duty to investigate accidents, but there are "implied" duties:-

1) Implicit duty under Regulation 5, Management regulations i.e.. Arrangements for monitoring of the preventive and protective measures.


Previously, the ACoP to the Management Regulations in para 36 under Regulation 5, Health & Safety Arrangements; Monitoring :-
Employers should measure what they are doing to implement their health and safety policy, to assess how effectively they are controlling risks, and how well they are developing a positive health and safety culture.

Monitoring includes:(b) adequately investigating the immediate and underlying causes of
incidents and accidents to ensure that remedial action is taken, lessons are learnt and longer term objectives are introduced

2) Implicit duty under RIDDOR for those that have to be reported to HSE, as one cannot adequately complete part, "About the Kind of Accident" i.e Describe what happened (give as much detail as you can, including i) the events that led to the incident ii) the operation or activity in progress. Describe any action taken to prevent similar incidents occurring).


Last, but not least, extract from HSE Guidance, "Investigating accidents and incidents:
A workbook for employers, unions, safety representatives and safety professionals -HS(G)245
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hsg245.pdf

Legal reasons for investigating
To ensure you are operating your organisation within the law.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 5, requires employers to plan, organise, control, monitor and review their health and safety arrangements. Health and safety investigations form an essential part of this process.

Following the Woolf Report on civil action, you are expected to make full disclosure of the circumstances of an accident to the injured parties considering legal action. The fear of litigation may make you think it is better not to investigate, but you can’t make things better if you don’t know what went wrong! The fact that you thoroughly investigated an accident and took remedial action to prevent further accidents would demonstrate to a court that your company has a positive attitude to health and safety. Your investigation findings will also provide essential information for your insurers in the event of a claim.

Perhaps a starting point for discussion might be Lord Atkins neighbour test?


Words like foreseeable bring in Bolton v Stone and a few other 'oldies' hard to give more on this without knowing the full context - but I am sure there is a reason connected to the syllabus for asking about it and some more up to date cases or accident profiles.

What it isn't (imho) is what most people talk of in the responses above ... 'candidates did not read the questions and answered one they wish they had been asked' or some other similar echo from the examiners....
Statute v Common law - come on it has only been around for 800 years!

Happy Birthday Magna Carta!

Aleeman

Further to Steve's point in #22, what is the exact wording of the question(s). No offence regarding your summation of the question, just sometimes even one word can make a huge difference. We seem to have focused on the accident investigation part of your post, not the reactive monitoring - which could be COSHH related.

Chris

The problem is that nearly everyone has gone off on the tangent of statutory provisions which was not what the OP was asking.

In common law judges do look behind matters and make judgements on what may be involved in maintaining the legal duty of care that is the foundation of much common law. We All have a duty of care not to injure others or damage their property and from this many things flow. If something has happened and we do not re assess what we are or have been doing then we are in severe difficulties before the courts to explain why we have failed to modify actions which have been known to cause damage. Hence the main purpose of investigation is to prevent re-occurrence NOT find the guilty. It is a very proper exam question as it gets the candidate to look deeper into the pressures of common law to investigaqte accidents WHATEVER statutory provisions may require.

Bob

Steve

Was tempted to use the standard examiner response "Read the question" :-)

Bob

Now I feel like really getting my teeth into this - a question which requires both the rationale for undertaking investigation - importantly the operative word is 'how' (common law expectations) and methodology for minimum requirement (statutory duties).

Good answer probably included doing more that the minimum, competence, process and remedial actions, sharing results, including representatives, insurance and other notifications etc etc.