Can anyone please point me at some case law, where the failure to protect those not in the company's employment, was maybe due to a lack of on site security (thereby exposing a trespasser to harm)?

Normally, Google would be my friend but this time around I am struggling to find just the right key words to provide useful results.

I think looking at an extreme, I have in mind a potential for death (or actual death) as a result of an organisations failure to adequately protect something. Say for instance a trepasser breaking into a old factory and inside there are exposed and live bus-bars, for example. There are insufficent warnings etc, and the intruder comes into contact with them and sufferers fatal injuries.

I think there was some case law surrounding a similar case where a child entered an electrical substation even though the owner had provided high fencing and warning signs to the danger. But the undergrowth and surrounding ground level had increased to an extent where the fence was not now high enough in  places, and the owner was held liable as it was reasonably forseeable that the fence was now more easily climbed.

I remember a young boy who died on a construction site in Barnsley a few years ago.  I think he climbed the security fence and fell down a drain pipe or something like that and wasnt found until the next morning when the workers arrived at site.  Google tells me his name was Conley Thompson.... which might help you find some details.  Im not aware of the outcome though so it may be of no use whatsoever.  We also had a child killed a few months back in Leeds when he broke into an old abandoned warehouse and the roof fell through on him. I think that he was called Mylo Johnstone.  May or may not help but maybe worth a "google"

Hot off the press, here is one the HSE reported on today.

http://press.hse.gov.uk/2017/builder-fined-after-father-and-son-seriously-injured-in-fall-from-height/

A civil claim rather than HASAW but have a look at Ian Heary v Michael Phinn t/a Phinn Parts

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14

Hot off the press, here is one the HSE reported on today.

http://press.hse.gov.uk/2017/builder-fined-after-father-and-son-seriously-injured-in-fall-from-height/

That example was sub-contractors, but reading on, about the serious breach of LOLER and the horrible injuries, I'm astonished at the fines:  "was fined £1200 with £558 costs."

No mention of LOLER in the sum up, just guilty of breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act.​​​​​​​

Were the injured persons seen as responsible because they did not use the securing attachments that were provided? No mention of them being prosecuted.

Does someone have the time to expalin the sentencing to me, I have real difficulty explainiing such examples to my clients when we look at such examples.

John

Edited by user 27 October 2017 12:37:47(UTC)  | Reason: amended

Sorry just bumping this up for feedback, though I guess we have insufficient information to answer my question

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14

Hot off the press, here is one the HSE reported on today.

http://press.hse.gov.uk/2017/builder-fined-after-father-and-son-seriously-injured-in-fall-from-height/

"... The necessary securing attachments were not present, and only one of the three had effectively been in place.

The platform fell onto the one worker trapping his shoulder and head. He also suffered a shattered right knee cap and crushed tibia and fibula. His father suffered three fractured vertebrae and a head wound needing 12 stitches".

That example was sub-contractors, but the farm owners were prosecuted, and reading on, about the serious breach of LOLER and the horrible injuries, I'm astonished at the fines:  "was fined £1200 with £558 costs."

No mention of LOLER in the sum up, just guilty of breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act.​​​​​​​

Were the injured persons seen as responsible because they did not use the securing attachments - not present at the accident but were maybe available to use? No mention of the injured contractors prosecuted.

Does someone have the time to expalin the sentencing to me, I have real difficulty explainiing such examples to my clients when we look at such examples.

John

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

Originally Posted by: JohnW

Thank you Kurdziel, as your avatar says you answered the question 🌝 So the 'cost' of this accident will be compensation provided through the insurance company. I still think the contractors, assuming they had telehandler training, must bear responsibility, so I suppose I would not make a good HSE inspector 🙄

JohnW

In your original and subsequent post you did not mention anything about a telehandler, rather about 'site security'. The two may be inextricably linked, however without the full facts it is difficult to provide a coherent response.

Thanks Ray, well, I would expect anyone contributing to this thread would have read the press release and know the accident arose from a person-platform sliding off the forks of a telehandler.

As you say, not enough information, but I read it as there were securing attachments available and the contractors omitted to use them, so the attachments were 'not present' at the scene of the accident

(three of the cladding company workers were elevated in the platform when it came adrift of the telehandler and fell to the ground.

The HSE investigation found that the work platform had not and could not have been connected to the telehandler in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions which required three separate mechanical attachments. The necessary securing attachments were not present, and only one of the three had effectively been in place.)

Edited by user 02 November 2017 13:07:07(UTC)  | Reason: typo

Hi Ray,

I think it's the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Regards

Mike

PS Sorry you didn't get on Council -they definitely need a different perspective. Mind you it might be like banging your head on a wall, but what's new in OHS