Morning all,

some years ago I was surprised to hear of a sucessful prosecution regarding a local authority regarding content of a risk assessment. The exact injury hadn't been specified, which was pivotal in identifying a suitable control. I think it was arboriculture but may stand corrected. 

Anyway, I recently asked opinion on here as to who was still identifying the 'How' as the update to the HSE's INDG when the '5 Steps' were given a face lift has much less emphasis (I don't want to detract into guidance / ACoP discussion) as I was hitting some resistance when being dismayed at generic and poor assessments from contractors.

So, to summarise: a) does anyone know of this case law or similar I'm talking about regarding specification of injury and succesful prosecutions or just enforcement action? And b) I'll ask this again, what's the general approach by some of the other H&S practitioners out there on specifiying injury? i.e. If someone's discussing work at heights on ladders I want more than 'fall from height' ( I know being too prescriptive doesn't always help either so believe me I'm trying for balance and practicality). 

Thoughts and experience welcome

Do you mean the nature of the injury or the mechanism of it occurring?  If you haven't identified how an injury (regardless of the sort of injury) might occur then you have no way of identifying a control measure.  For example getting your hand trapped in a machine could result in anything from a few bruises to total amputation.  The important issue is not the injury but how you got your hand into the danger point, answering that question allows you to identify the control measure.

Thanks all, 

Ray as usual, insightful and confirming what I already know and practise, I perhaps drew too much distraction towards contractors, in which case I'd be less concerned in an evaluation process. But from a SHEQ Manager's role, if this potential mythical  court case existed (I know it does from the person who told me and their proximity to the case, they're simply uncontactable), I'd want confidence in my documents and defenseability in an enforcment scenario. personally, I've always listed a range of likely injuries (not extensive) i.e. contusions, cuts, concussions and potential fatalities from such as falls from height (where warranted).

I simply can't agree from experience and the HSE's own literature with the other 2 comments. Each to their own opinion, but on viewing their sample assessments and the previous edition of INDG 163 to which I referred, they give example injuries. So whilst it may not explicitly require them and they MHSWR ACoP now being repealed, their lead on this fits the prosecution scenario I'm trying to guage opinon on here.

For anyone else reading this post. If you have examples of experience where enforcement agencies have commicated on suitability of RA's and harm identification, I'd appreciate a share. 

Thanks all again.

I agree with Hsquared14. You need to establish the injury / injury mechanism to an extent. If you took the working at height example. You could fall and splat on the ground, but falling may not be the only issue with that particular work at height activity, you could also fall into a river or onto spiky fencing, or onto electrical equipment. Obviously, the initial control will be to ensure they don’t fall off, but you may also put in controls for the other injury mechanisms. So, I would at least note these additional injury mechanisms on the RA to ensure they are covered by controls if required. So, the “How” is the injury mechanism or injury, this could include electrocution, being impaled by the fence, or drowning in the river etc.

My take on your question.

For an injury mechanism not considered, as an example you could read Kates Story (Google IOSH Kates Story and you will find it).

Chris