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
Ajolie19  
#1 Posted : 23 February 2021 11:54:14(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Ajolie19

We recently had an injury at work, where an operator tripped over fixed equipment. (injury itself is on the reportable list)

The accident was not process related and he was not using the equipment; the floor is in good condition and was clear of debris.  He was, harshly speaking, simply not watching where he was going and caught his foot on the end of the machine.

We have read INDG453 and this is where I formed my own opinion.  I would appreciate the benefit of other peoples' opinions on whether this is reportable as a work related incident or not.

I've been doing this for 20 years and the guidance still causes heated discussions!

CptBeaky  
#2 Posted : 23 February 2021 11:59:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

If the equipment is "work related" then my first instinct is that it probably is RIDDOR reportable, given that it obviously has the capability to cause a person to trip over it.

However without more details it is hard to say for sure.

Obviously the important part is the investigation and remedial actions.

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Ajolie19 on 23/02/2021(UTC)
chris42  
#3 Posted : 23 February 2021 12:10:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I think the same it probably is work related due to the condition of the workplace, ie there was a low bit of machine someone could trip over. The thing is as you know, you can’t realistically expect people to be 100% alert, 100% of the time. Is there any reason a barrier or post could not have been fitted?

The only thing I can think of was he should not have been walking / going where he was and so on a frolic of their own, but does not sound like it. From the little we know I would probably say it is reportable.

Chris

thanks 2 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 23/02/2021(UTC), Ajolie19 on 23/02/2021(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#4 Posted : 23 February 2021 13:26:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

A RIDDOR question: almost back to "normal"

Gasman  
#5 Posted : 23 February 2021 14:21:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Gasman

Doesn't matter if the IP tripped over a cat, if you are at work (As in on a work site) or even if you are working on the side of the road undertaking a task deemed "being at work" then if injury is such that its a reportable injury under RIDDOR it 's a RIDDOR.

A Kurdziel  
#6 Posted : 23 February 2021 14:42:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Not convinced about the cat: if it was cattery or the feline had official standing as a corporate mouse catcher then yes but a passing feline; no.

When I worked at the National Bee Unit,  I always asked the question if someone got stung on our site “was it one of our bees or just  a bee passing through”

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
Yossarian on 24/02/2021(UTC)
dennish  
#7 Posted : 24 February 2021 13:34:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
dennish

Gasman, i suggest you read the regulations.

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
thanks 1 user thanked dennish for this useful post.
Ajolie19 on 24/02/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#8 Posted : 24 February 2021 13:43:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

dennish

Agree one should read the regulations which say

“work-related accident” means an accident arising out of or in connection with work.

The regulations do not add all the other stuff that you have quoted from HSE's guidance.

It's for the Courts to decide on how to interpret the regulations. There are plenty of reasons why HSE might choose to interpret RIDDOR so as to discourage the reporting of accidents which are of little interest to them and merely up the numbers.

chris42  
#9 Posted : 24 February 2021 14:18:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

The regulations in Reg 2 have :

“work-related accident” means an accident arising out of or in connection with work.

(2) In these Regulations, any reference to a work-related accident or dangerous occurrence includes an accident or dangerous occurrence attributable to—

(a)the manner of conducting an undertaking;

(b)the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking; or

(c)the condition of the premises used for the purposes of an undertaking or any part of them.

Chris

peter gotch  
#10 Posted : 24 February 2021 14:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Tut, tut - my mistake! But of course the second definition has the word "includes". That means that other things might fall within the overall definition and, like some others who have commented on this thread, in my view the accident as described is reportable.

Brian Hagyard  
#11 Posted : 25 February 2021 08:37:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Once apon a time the HSE used to produce ACOPs which had a quasie legal standing and helped us mear mortals interprit regulations. But the RIDDOR one was got rid of in the purge against "red tape" when the 1993 regs were published. Sadly the web site information does not have quit the same weight.

Peter is quit right that only the courts can decide for sure - but as the HSE/LA enforcement officers who would take the case then i think the HSE advice is relvant.

Its unlikley that a case world ever be taken just for none reporting - it would not pass the public interestr test. In my experiance as an inspector for 30 years i certainly dont remember one. It was only ever added as an additional charge when we found out about seriouse injuries late in the day.

From the information supplied, i.e. someone has fallen over work equipment in the workplace - I belive this incident is workrelated and if the other factors are met (i.e. major injury or 7 day unable to do normal duties) it is reportable.

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
Ajolie19 on 25/02/2021(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#12 Posted : 25 February 2021 09:34:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

This falls in the realms of “pure compliance” that is a breach of the law where all that was broken was rule that required some sort of action. The HSE policy , from what I have seen of it is that such breaches are only pursued if  they have lead, or could lead to an actual accident. For example an employee is injured at work and the company try to cover it up by not reporting under RIDDOR, you would get done under the RIDDOR regs for that. Forgetting to report a trip which led to a twisted ankle, would not attract any attention. The thing about RIDDOR, which in my humble opinion gets H&S people hot under the collar is that organisations use it as metric for KPI’s etc. They also have to submit “number of RIDDORS in the last 5 years etc” for pre-qualification questionnaire, which is another source of angst.

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.