Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
ivorheadache  
#1 Posted : 12 April 2019 13:09:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ivorheadache

Afternoon everyone.  I’m dealing with an accident that involves an employee tripping a broken paving slab on a public footpath.  She was on her way out of a meeting which was ‘in connection with work activity’.  Result was a fractured wrist which needed a surgery on the same day. Simple question: is this RIDDOR?

Thanks if anyone can help.

Dave5705  
#2 Posted : 13 April 2019 12:08:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Hi, I'm going to say no, based on that it was not due to the way the work was organised, carried out or supervised; OR due to any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for work; OR the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened (because it was not company premises, it was a public footpath).

But I'm happy to be corrected.

thanks 1 user thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/04/2019(UTC)
RayRapp  
#3 Posted : 13 April 2019 16:40:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Agree with above, the cause of the accident was not work related and therefore not a RIDDOR.

Steve e ashton  
#4 Posted : 13 April 2019 18:34:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Whilst I agree with the responses posted, the judges and the high Court Lords who heard the Cordia case might disagree... Although that was a slip on ice rather than a trip, the locus of the accident seemed to be largely irrelevant in determining liability. And therefore (apparently) if employees are obliged to walk in a place then the employer might be judged negligent if they fail to assess the condition of that place. I'm not saying it's right (i strongly disagree with the high court ruling in this case...) but a keen no win no fee shyster could very well ask for a copy of the f2508 and claim negligence if its not produced... I don't believe its reportable, but note failure to report may be used to establish 'something' (mens rea?) in a civil claim for damages....
thanks 1 user thanked Steve e ashton for this useful post.
DavidGault on 18/04/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 13 April 2019 19:59:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Been suggested before - don't ask just report - if We All do it eventually someone may bother to clarify the regulations. Asking iosh to generate an FAQ based on the thousands of similar posts is a deaf ears scenario.
chris42  
#6 Posted : 15 April 2019 08:47:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

To be clear. When you say public footpath, do you mean a path on company property that the members of the public use (but its owned and maintained by the company) or is it a street type footpath owned and maintained by the council.

If council I would say Not RIDDOR as it would be the same as a post person, which has been discussed before and I think everyone decided no (I struggled to make my mind up on that one). Walking down the street is part of everyday life. However, any claim would then go to the council.

If company owned property then Yes RIDDOR, for failing to maintain and so the condition of the premises played a part.

I think the Cordia case is different because there was something the employer could do, ie provide anti slip footwear as they knew she would have to visit clients in snowy / icy conditions. There is nothing a company could do about a council owned footpath.

 Agree with Roundtuit, the only way to force better guidance is to bombard the HSE with every conceivable report we can. Sadly, this would be a problem for some companies as they have to report this info to their customers. The HSE openly admit there is underreporting for RIDDOR!

Chris

fairlieg  
#7 Posted : 15 April 2019 09:04:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

In the Cordia case Liability was determined based on the provision of PPE based on the outcome of the risk assessment, the location was not relevant in this case.  The case determined liability based on negligence, not work relatedness for the purposes of RIDDOR reporting

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/6.html&query=(cordia)+AND+(slip)+AND+(ice)

In any case RIDDOR sets out the requirements for statutory reporting of incidents in or arising out of work, they are not intended for determining liability for the employer (as the case above does).  As posted Dave5705 this means the accident cause must be due to the way the work was organised, carried out or supervised; OR due to any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for work; OR the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened. 

This is not the same as the test for negligence (was there a duty of care owed, was that duty breached, was a loss suffered as a result of the breach).

In my opinion they clearly are two different things and many of the arguments regarding weather or not they should be reported under RIDDOR requirements confuse these two issues.  So for example in this Cordia case was the employer liable?  Yes. Was it a RIDDOR accident?.......... the work she was there to do was a bed bath, change of body position and checking medication, she slipped outside on the path when broke her wrist she was not doing any of those things. 

The guidance on the website even says, "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".  Walking to and from a meeting or walking to a front door is not likely the work activity, but it does not mean the employer is not liable if you get while doing injured doing it you just don’t necessarily have to report it under RIDDOR giving regard to the way the work was organised, carried out or supervised; OR due to any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for work; OR the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened. 

Edited by user 15 April 2019 09:48:36(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked fairlieg for this useful post.
jwk on 24/04/2019(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#8 Posted : 15 April 2019 09:37:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The Cordia case was to do with civil liability and the tort of negligence (except it was a Scottish case but we we’ll ignore that for now). RIDDOR is a set of regulations which essentially say if you have a work related accident you must report it to the HSE. It does not matter how serious (or potentially serious it is; if it is on the list of types of incident it must be reported.

As people often mention, just because something is RIDDOR reportable it does not mean that you have to accept any form of liability.

Dave5705  
#9 Posted : 15 April 2019 17:35:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Hmm, as the OP was "is it RIDDOR reportable" then we all agree it is not, but as has been said it does not mean there is no liability.

But it is an interesting point. It would be great to bombard the HSE with RIDDOR reports to push them for clarity, but as has been raised, many use low or zero RIDDOR report counts as a safety targets, and many managers get all sweaty when you mention RIDDOR (I don't agree, I think every accident report no matter how small is gold dust to an H&S officer and nothing should be swept under the carpet) but lots of companies would not encourage it I suspect. Question: should we allow targets to influence reporting, or should we change the target.

thanks 1 user thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 16/04/2019(UTC)
RayRapp  
#10 Posted : 15 April 2019 19:44:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

A simple question elicits so many different responses.

Ok, so many organisations feel a RIDDOR incident is a blemish on them. That's largely because these same organisations like to boast in their contract bids how few RIDDORS they have, it spoils their 'zero tolerance' figures, or any number of other negative reasons. I have worked for household names who do their utmost to prevent a RIDDOR from being publicised. The notion that organisations will just report if in doubt is not the world I know.  

As for a potential civil claim...I'm lost for words.    

Zyggy  
#11 Posted : 16 April 2019 15:27:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

A simple answer to a simple question - no, not reportable under RIDDOR based on the information given. I have to agree with Ray regarding a reluctance to make reports under RIDDOR in case it has a detrimental affect on getting future work!
fairlieg  
#12 Posted : 17 April 2019 08:05:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: Zyggy Go to Quoted Post
A simple answer to a simple question - no, not reportable under RIDDOR based on the information given. I have to agree with Ray regarding a reluctance to make reports under RIDDOR in case it has a detrimental affect on getting future work!

Unfortunately, the safety profession has built a system of performance measurement based on the absence of negatives and not the presence of positives.

Can you imagine determining the success of one’s marriage/civil partnership based on the lack of hate there is “good morning darling I don’t hate you” or how many affairs you haven’t had that year and its improvement base on how fewer extramarital excursions made year on year……………

thanks 2 users thanked fairlieg for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 17/04/2019(UTC), Dave5705 on 17/04/2019(UTC)
RayRapp  
#13 Posted : 17 April 2019 08:59:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Very true fairlieg, unfortunately measuring the positives is more difficult than negative outcomes. There is also a tendency to measure what is easy to measure rather than what should be measured in our industry. For example, you could have thousands of hours without a LTI/RIDDOR, but as soon as one happens the proverbial hits the fan - bad news travels very fast!

thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 17/04/2019(UTC)
Dave5705  
#14 Posted : 17 April 2019 20:14:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Originally Posted by: fairlieg Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Zyggy Go to Quoted Post
A simple answer to a simple question - no, not reportable under RIDDOR based on the information given. I have to agree with Ray regarding a reluctance to make reports under RIDDOR in case it has a detrimental affect on getting future work!

Unfortunately, the safety profession has built a system of performance measurement based on the absence of negatives and not the presence of positives.

Can you imagine determining the success of one’s marriage/civil partnership based on the lack of hate there is “good morning darling I don’t hate you” or how many affairs you haven’t had that year and its improvement base on how fewer extramarital excursions made year on year……………

excellent! priceless....
Dave5705  
#15 Posted : 17 April 2019 20:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Originally Posted by: RayRapp Go to Quoted Post

Very true fairlieg, unfortunately measuring the positives is more difficult than negative outcomes. There is also a tendency to measure what is easy to measure rather than what should be measured in our industry. For example, you could have thousands of hours without a LTI/RIDDOR, but as soon as one happens the proverbial hits the fan - bad news travels very fast!

Maybe it's time for an alternative campaign!

"Thank goodness our staff know what to do when it NEARLY gets serious... or we would never be able to stop it BEING SERIOUS!"

thanks 1 user thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 18/04/2019(UTC)
ivorheadache  
#16 Posted : 18 April 2019 13:50:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ivorheadache

Oh Wow!! Thanks guys. I looked in at the end of the day I posted but had no responses. Cant believe that since it has caused such a big response. I've just sat and read all the replies and intresting angles as to weather to report or not. It was a public footpath owned by the council so we would not have control of it.

I would agree that it's better to report than not. As one of you has suggested, a potential claim could ask for the F2508. Failure to produce would cause a lot more aggro. The final decision to RIDDOR is of my line manager so your help here will help us to get to that decision.

Thanks all. Have a great Easter weekend.

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.