I have to disagree with Zyggy, if the accident occured to a non-worker and they were then taken to hospital for treatment it is deemed reportable pursuant to RIDDOR. It matters not the cause of the injury or who was at fault.

Zyggy - It's all about interpretation isn't it ? 

I understand your point of view, and I also respect your interpretation of the RIDDOR Regs, but my own view is that (with the odd exception) most visitors WILL be "at work", just working for someone other than the host company.  I would also expect all visitors to be accompanied, supervised and issued with PPE (if the known risks warranted it) whilst on the site of the host company. 

Therefore, the fact that a visitor is able to have an accident in the first place should ring alarm bells with the host organisation (even though I fully accept that these things can happen, even when you think you've covered all the bases, we're dealing with unpredictable humans after all !), and why - in my opinion - it would be RIDDOR reportable "in connection with work".

Elfin - great minds think alike. :)

You have to think about how the various regs combine - is the visitor "at work" - possibly so, but also possibly not.   So who has the responsibilty to report this? - in this case I would surmise it's the site employer not the visitor's employer.  Have you liaised with them about it?

So on my assumptions in this case they are then a member of the public to the site. Therefore, the first hurdle to get over as to whether it is reportable or not is, is it "a work-related accident".  From the information given it could be, or it might not be.

What you would have to consider is issues such as what were you doing at the time, what were they doing at the time, why were they in the position they were in to get injured, had you given them any information about straying off the walkways and so on and on.

Only you can make the decision based on the information you have to hand.  The rest of us are guessing at the circumstances because you can never fully explain things in a short posting.

Hmm interesting discussion. In my view the 'work related' aspect of RIDDOR only applies to an employee, sub-contractor, or self-employed person - not a member of the public (ie non-worker). 

The IP banged their head of some machinery - is it their fault and therefore according to the work related definition not reportable, or due to lack of proper supervision, induction, PPE, etc?

I would appreciate more information:

The visitor was a genuine member of the public e.g. company open day for neighbours, family and community - in this case reportable by the host

The visitor was from a supplier/customer/inter-company - complete your own report and forward it to the persons employer and let them have the headache (no pun intended) of monitoring for over seven day absence. Initially not reportable as employees attending hospital for treatment are not covered by RIDDOR.

Ok Zyggy, I'll concede the 'work related' aspect even though it makes little sense to me and is not included on the section of RIDDOR I reviewed, however it is included in other material as per AndyJB's link.

Yup.  With Zyggy on this.

Need more info on this actual accident so as to determine whether it arose out of the condition or management of the workplace.

For another example, take members of the public exercising in a members only gym - a workplace for some.  Were they to drop a free weight on their foot and require a direct trip to hospital for treatment, this would still not be automatically reportable.  If the equipment failed, weight dropped off unexpectedly etc. then yes...if they simply dropped it...then no.

All accidents require investigation into the details of the circumstances they arose in - that ticks many safety management systems boxes and, incidentally, also allows for an appropriate and informed decision under RIDDOR.

watcher - I suppose it depends upon where you work.  If it's a shopping centre, then I agree that most visitors won't be "at work" and will be genuine members of the public.  However, in many (and I would argue, most) bona fide work places, the majority of visitors will be at work, just for other people or companies - think Reps, Customers (accompanied site tours for example), Clients, Contractors etc etc, and this is where I was coming from.  In my own experience (which I fully accept may well differ from the experiences of others) our "at work" visitors greatly outnumber our "members of the general public" visitors.

Edited by user 20 April 2017 12:14:45(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: Graham

For incident reporting purposes volunteers working in charity shops are classified as members of  the public.
This was decided by our local authority!

Which I think is bizarre, but there it is

This is actually a HSE decision Graham, and I share your view that it is bizarre. I attend the Charity Safety Group and we even wrote to HSE for clarification; volunteers for RIDDOR purposes are members of the public.

We have over 20,000 volunteers and they deliver the bulk of our front-line services; we absolutely could not run without them. They are driving vehicles, erecting gazebos, filling sand-bags, delivering first aid and so on. 7,000 of them help keep our shops open. I wonder what HSe have in mind when they think about volunteering? It's not just helping out at the cake stall or making cups of tea... It's real work with real workplace risks...

John

I don't like these questions but I have to go with Watcher on this one they are not at work and the injury doesn't seem to have been in connection with work. Post #3 tells us that he wasn't watching were he was going and banged his head.