Okay its another Riddor question. What do you think?

After a break during their work shift, an employee was walking up stairs to collect cleaning equipment to continue daily duties. On the way up the stairs, they miss footing and fall, causing an injuring  and resulting in an absence from work for more than 7 days. The IP was not carrying anything and the view of the stairs was not impeded, the staircase had a handrail which they had held onto at the time, there were no defects to the stairs, no obstructions or spillages, the lighting was good and appropriate footwear was worn.

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I would not report it. Yes, the injury happened at work but, was it arising out of a work activity...not really. Will the HSE  be interested in such a report - no. 

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Should have realised it was a hypothetical question when it was stated the IP had hold of the handrail (from observation very few properly use a handrail on stairs) and seen quite a lot of video refuting IP statements of the same during investigations. Headline item - over seven day injury. To the pedantic who will debate white is black and black is white my old boss summed up my previous role in a quaint expression when asked what I did at the company.. "keeps me out of court" Let the HSE decide after a report has been made, unjustified it will be ignored otherwise your employer is in court for failing to report - and guilty plea discount is likely to disappear. 10 minutes on line versus the fine which is the most cost effective?

When asked to decribe my postion during a 'safety workshop' I stated " turning Senior leadership rhetoric into operational reality" to much applause...

I have not been promoted.

No, missing your footing is not a RIDDOR there has to be something that the company did or didn't do.

Hi Invictus

My opinion, both then and now, was as yours - not reportable. However, the 'incident' escalated internally and resulted in the Head of HSE arguing that it was reportable as it was in the workplace - to this day, I've never seen anyone with such a large neck-vein that almost popped! The subsequent reporting that he did resulted in the Directors losing their annual bonus and the facilities team having to sweep the car park of any other miscreant acorns. H&S image was also tarnished too

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

According to the HSE's criteria for reporting of injuries the hypothetical scenario would NOT be reportable pursuant to RIDDOR - see below. Now, if the injured person had been carrying something or the condition of the stairs/handrail was at fault, then it may have been reportable. A person at work could have been using the stairs for a number of reasons i.e. lunch break, toilet break, leaving work and so on, none of these activities are work related. We have still not prevented people from falling over their own feet! HSE Guidance - What is meant by ‘work-related’? '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' http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...nitions.htm#work-related

Thanks Ray, I checked the same link yesteday to understand fully the work-related definition. My only moot point is that the individual in the senario was not on a break, but in fact en route to collect work equipment to do the work activity - nevertheless, the tripping on own feet part is valid and not a factor that an employer should be expected to consider. On reflection, i'm more No than Yes, from a technical viewpoint, but would probably err on caution and report (now I can be shot down for wasting HSE time) The latter probably a result of paranoia!

Originally Posted by: jwk

I wouldn't report this. The phrase in RIDDOR is not 'work related', it is 'arising out of or in connection with work' which is a bit tighter than work related (though it's still very broad). Missing your footing on a normal staircase in good repair when you're not impeded by carrying stuff is not 'arising out of or in connection with work'. At my old place we had somebody fall downstairs and break her ankle, we didn't report it, there was no connection with work. Paragraph 38 of the guidance to RIDDOR explains it all very well,

John

Thanks John. All clear.

I wonder if I would get away with paying folk for the time taken to complete the (actual) activities (within their JD) and not for the effort/travel time etc it takes to get to the equipment or place to carry out the activity! Nonsense of course...However many would argue that the latter is in 'connection' to the work.

Anyway, for RIDDOR, we all agree: Not reportable.

Cheers

Barry.

Hello all,

An employee slips over on a customers site and bangs his knee on a steel beam resulting in a cut which required stitches and was attended to the same day. He has the next day off and then goes on holiday for 2 weeks in the US. He returns to work and works for a further 3 weeks during which time I visited him and observed that his cut was healing well, no bruising. He then does not come into work and complains of a swollen knee ( same one) and his wife brings in a Doctors cert giving 10 days off for "knee injury".

Reportable?

Thanks for the reply John,

GP has not suggested a link between the two, work area was clean and tidy, dry and sunny day, employee wearing safety boots, does not know how he slipped and says its just one of those things. He was cleaning some flashing from a piece of precast concrete with a bar when he went over.

I guess this is irrelevant for RIDDOR purposes but he has been disgruntled over losing supervisor money as he is no longer a supervisor.

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Reference Ray's rocking horse, 1 @ RIDDOR 1995 conviction in last 5 years.

But........two RIDDOR 2013 this year. Whether this is statistically significant is too early to tell.

Thanks Peter, perhaps the increase is due to someone at the HSE realising they can prosecute pursuant to RIDDOR after all. :)

Steve, from what you have said, I stick with not reportable, if that's any help,

John