Leisure equipment supplied in canteen for enjoyment whilst at work; user injures himself resulting in broken bone in his foot.

Reportable under RIDDOR or not?

Not work related as far as I can see. To quote from the RIDDOR website:

An accident is ‘work-related’ if any of the following played a significant role:
- the way the work was carried out
- any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or
- the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened

You supplied the equipment for leisure, not work so not reportable.

If he was not at work, was he taken to hospital?

People injuring themselves whilst exercising, even if on leisure equipment supplied for that purpose in connection with the business, does not an automatic RIDDOR make.

So yes, the leisure industry generally don't need to report people injuring themselves whilst exercising UNLESS there is defect in the environment or equipment or the way in which the activity was organised etc. that significantly contributed to the accident. The IP could be considered as a MoP, not an employee, at the time of the accident so reportability can't just be discounted on the basis of not undertaking a work activity alone...but the above still needs to apply even in those circumstances. It appears from the OP's follow up that this wasn't the case.

If you're going to mock and accuse, make sure you're on firm ground.

Please go to the HSE website where they have plenty of examples of what is or isn't reportable - here's a link - click on 'sporting injuries'.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...reportable-incidents.htm


In addition, the test for an accident being work-related is NOT simply that the injured person was 'at work'. The HSE website makes this pretty explicitly clear. There are some relatively good examples of this in the catering and hospitality section on the same link.

Oldroyd, you have listed a number of questions in your reply to determine I presume if an accident is reportable. These questions are NOT found in any of the current RIDDOR guidance. The key question here is 'is the accident work-related'. The HSE's questions to determine this are explicit and can be found here:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...nitions.htm#work-related

You may be making a common error here. Just because an accident is not reportable under RIDDOR does not mean that an employer should not be interested in investigating and preventing it from happening again. The injured person is still off work and not contributing to the organisation as a result of the injury and common law duty of care would likely still apply should a claim for compensation result from the accident. These are valid but separate considerations from interpretation of the current RIDDOR regs, which is what the original question was about.

Correction on my last reply. Some of Oldroyd's questions are of course valid for RIDDOR (e.g. nature of the injury), but the ones about being at work are not part of RIDDOR guidance.

Hi Oldroyd,

Well, I still wouldn't report and would be prepared to argue the toss in court,

John

Howdy Oldroyd

We can agree that there is some definite issues with the wording of RIDDOR.

But your buddy at the HSE's own personal description of how he would determine work-related is at odds with the description given on his employers website for how to determine work-related. Therefore I would suggest that he is wrong.

Additionally those examples I linked to all deal with whether an issue was 'arising out of or in connection with work'...a definition under RIDDOR that applies equally to members of the public, employees, contractors etc.


The point about solicitors making claims is true. That is often how the unreported accidents get flagged up to an enforcing authority and is the risk that a business runs in deciding not to report. However, where a business can give a clear justification for not reporting something that later turns out to be very grey then I would suggest that I'd have a hard time arguing for even the service of an Improvement Notice, let alone a prosecution.

Westonphil

Let's see the HSE test that in court then; it may then clear things up. Or else they could simply write it on their website, it would take but an hour or so to make the change.

His comments were an opinion.

That's correct.

I know it is...

JWK

I agree

There seems to be one main criteria here .... was it work related?

So, if the employee was using the equipment in work time for which he was being paid you could argue that there might be a case for this being work related.

However, if he was using the equipment in a break for which he was not being paid, then it really wasn't work related and doesn't need reporting.

Unless, of course, the equipment was faulty, then that's a whole different scenario.