Individual employed to travel round the city collecting fly tipped waste. Twists ankle stepping up a kerb and breaks ankle. No defects to kerb or surface. I don't think this is reportable...? correct

AM1, agree with Hilary. Employee was engaged in their normal work duties. There may or may not be a fault but there has been an incident which resulted in injury which will keep them away from normal duties for some time. Having recently seen some modified PPE I feel I should ask the appropriate footwear question! Nic

I also think it's reportable. Whether there is a defect in premises only comes in when the injury is to someone who is on your premises but not working as your employee (eg a member of the public); this was to an employee and arose out of his work activity so is reportable.

The trip in the works car park is a different case because that person is not working, they are only travelling to or from their workplace. A trip over something while doing your work does qualify (regardless of whether it was anyone's fault).

reportable/recordable, I'm quite sure the original poster knew what was meant. As far as I can see, walking up and down kerbs is a part of the job for someone who walks around the city centre picking up fly tipping. Even if they had a van and alighted from it to get the fly tipping, it would still be work related as this is part of the work duties. The only reason for it not to be work related would be if he was at lunch or on some other break. If, on the other hand, he was a district nurse, got out of his car to visit a patient and had the same accident, then that would not be work related as the district nurse would be going to a place of work and not at a place of work.

In or out? I believe it was 52% in favour of out. ;) I can see where confusion arises because the wording in the Regulations is unhelpful and they fail to provide an interpretation section. However, I still think the HSE is very clear on this issue. The HSE guidance groups Regs 4-6 together as one and describes the 3 stage test that applies. For clarity, that means this bit of guidance below applies to both injuries to employees and non-employees. http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/key-definitions.htm 'RIDDOR requires deaths and injuries to be reported only when: there has been an accident which caused the injury the accident was work-related the injury is of a type which is reportable' It does not draw any magical distinction between work-related as applied to employees and as applied to persons not at work. I don't know where that has come from in these posts. It goes on to define what work-related means and discusses the contributory nature of a failure/fault etc. Whilst RIDDOR has definite grey areas, this particular matter of whether it becomes reportable simply because it occurred whilst at work or during a work activity is not one of them. In point of fact, here is the wording from the example being discussed: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...reportable-incidents.htm 'Q. An employee steps out of his private car in the office car park. In doing so, he somehow twists his ankle. As a result, he has more than seven days off work. The employee had not yet started work for the day. There were no defects to the car park surface, debris or spillages etc present that may have contributed to the incident and the light was good. Is this reportable? A. No. Provided that there was nothing about the condition and design of the car park surface, condition, slope, weather conditions, lighting etc which contributed to the accident. Just because an accident occurs on work premises, this does not make it a work-related accident. Note: If the injured employee was not ‘at work’ then their employer, being in control of the premises, would still have to report any work-related accident which required the injured person to be taken to a hospital for treatment. So, if the injured person put their foot in a pothole and twisted their ankle, it might be reportable as work-related. If they had just stepped awkwardly out of the car, then it is not.' Please note the line that states 'Just because an accident occurs on work premises, this does not make it a work-related accident.' Whilst the example goes on to discuss the 'at work' issue, that is added as an addendum to the main point and you'll note is 'still' subject to the same rule of determining 'work-relatedness'. That's because the exact same set of guidance applies for Regs 4-6 inclusive. ....I knew I shouldn't get involved but can't help myself sometimes. I'll stop after this, I promise.

Chris I don't mind an argument. In fact, I'd be happy for someone to blast me out of the water. Mr Skyrme has done it to me once or twice before. ;) I think your query to me goes to the heart of what I see as the mis-interpretation. There is 'work-related' as a dictionary definition. Clearly the OPs described task and activity is part of work. No doubt. So I'm not saying that the work of moving between the vehicle was not part of the work - it is! But there is also 'work-related' as a legal definition under RIDDOR which is not the same. Apologies to all for another copy and paste job but the HSE answer to 'what is meant by work-related?' is: 'RIDDOR only requires you to report accidents if they happen ‘out of or in connection with work’. The fact that there is an accident at work premises does not, in itself, mean that the accident is work-related – the work activity itself must contribute to the accident. 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' The test that appears to be used by others above of 'did it happen during or at work?' does not feature. That rather speaks to the dictionary definition of work-related and not the guided definition as given above. Therefore I suggest that it is incorrect to apply it and you may arrive at a wrong conclusion concerning reportability. I'm always circumspect in offering definitive advice as one of the true grey areas of RIDDOR'13 is whether a work factor has made a contribution and played a significant role. So the question for this query is 'did the way the work was carried out, or any substances or equipment used for the work or the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened' play a significant role? That would be the determination of whether the accident was work related. The example I quoted is useful as it clearly draws a distinction between a person simply tripping in an environment you would make no changes to, versus one in which you would because there was a defect - it draws out the contribution played by the environment and therefore the work-related aspect.

Yes but.... there is always a "But" The three things listed 1) the way the work was carried out 2) any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or 3) the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened' Here is the "But" They don't all have to be true. So isn't the way it was carried out, ie rushing or just not looking where he was going or feet obsquered by load carried etc not "the way the work was carried out" Because otherwise this first part would never come into play! You would end up only reporting when there is environment defects or equipment defects. The way the person does something would always be ignored, ie the way they lifted, stretched to get something, moved from one point to another, failed to look, failed to pay attention are surley all part of the way the work is carried out. or not? The HSE example is one where they have not started work, or part of a work activity which this clearly is part of the activity itself, not just access to place of work. Chris You know I think we (us) have had this discussion before and failed to agree ! You know there are so many peripatetic workers out there, would it hurt the HSE to give an example or two more.

Well AM1 the debate seems to be over, you have your answer. It seems there is a 1/3 to 2/3 split, but I think your are the only one to make the final judgement. Please don't make it to "be on the safe side" , but make your decision because you feel that is the correct thing to do / not do. Your decision really is about, was the action of walking when they fell / tripped on the curb due to the way the work was carried out or not. This could be better defined by the HSE, if you were to change your scenario a bit and asked if a person walking from their desk to the photocopier the other side of the office tripped and fell over nothing in particular is this related to their work and the way it was carried out- different scenario, but only a little. I think I can see why people vote the other way. A very fine line and no more guidance than noted above. HSE do seem to report on slips trips and falls, so they are reported to them, but this could just mean there are a lot of pot holes with poor lighting about. My take as you know it is reportable, but you are the only one with the fine detail. Chris oops previous post poor spelling should be "obscured"

Not reportable, just because he's at work doesn't mean it's reportable. The work activity itself must contribute to the accident. 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 As the bottom two criteria are not relevant and unless 'the way the work was carried out' is applicable - not reportable..

There must be an identifiable external event that causes the injury, eg a falling object striking someone...... therefore NOT REPORTABLE, he twisted his ankle as he stepped onto the pavement.

Chris - you've nailed the right question to my mind with your latter post. This makes the test of reportable or not more accurate - regardless of which way it falls. From the start my point on this thread has been that the decision making process quoted by others was flawed and not consistent with guidance. It leads to over-reporting - which some may or may not have an issue with. There is also a valid point made about HSE guidance vs Court interpretation but whilst that's a technical truth, you know as well as I that the guidance the National Regulator produces WILL be applied in the Court as an aide to their interpretation. If you wish to ignore the HSE guidance, then the example is not so relevant, if you wish to follow it, then it absolutely is.

Perfectly put Mr Insurance. Much better description than my post at #17, this is also my take on it, not reportable.

In my rush to get back to my sandwich I forgot to mention to please feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss this or any other health and safety law matter. I am always happy to discuss issues with my colleagues. Many thanks. DJ

We appear to have two camps, the "yes, maybe" and the "no, maybe" camp and each camp makes valid points. So let's turn this round and ask this question instead ... If it is reportable and I do not report it, what will the likely outcome be? or If it is not reportable and I report it, what will the likely outcome be? Simply put, if you report it when it is not reportable, RIDDOR will pay it no mind whatsoever. However, if you fail to report it when you should have ......

Ok so if we follow the questions posed by Hilary at #30 then if it not a RIDDOR and it is reported we would all probably agree that very little would happen. If it is a RIDDOR and it is not reported, then again very little would happen in terms of the HSE, but i'd expect a "Claim" for injury sustained at work being lodged by the injured party. In any case there is a duty to record the incident and thoroughly investigate it. Only then will you truly know if it should be reported.

On the basis of reporting it and it is non-reportable, company accident statistics would be affected, tendering for work may be affected, and if this principle was followed routinely, reputation would probably be affected. It reminds me of design risk management and capturing significant risks, it takes confidence not to pile in with quantities of general risks that are not significant (but that's the majority of what you get)!

I agree, simply put, could not have worded it any better myself.

It used to baffle me until I appreciated that in some industries there are consequences to reporting; not that anyone wants to avoid it but more wanting to be sure it's appropriate and justifying to senior managers. I think the root of the problem is unclear guidance from HSE/HSC. They could do a better job, I think.