Hi all, 

I've been trying to ascertain if the following incident is RIDDOR reportable but it does not appear obvious. 

An out-patient attending a hospital tripped on the curb, fell over and fractured her arm however, the patient and husband both admitted that the patient was looking at her phone at the time.

Although this incident happened on site and the patient was taken to A&E, there seems to be no work related or environmental fault of the hospital.

Should this be reported as a RIDDOR?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hsis1.htm

Patient/service user fall incidents

A fall is reportable under RIDDOR when it has arisen out of or in connection with a work activity and results in a specified injury. This includes where equipment or the work environment (including how or where work is carried out, organised or supervised) are involved.

Reportable

■ A service user falls in the lounge area, there is previous history of fall incidents, but reasonably practicable measures to reduce the risks have not been put in place.

■ A service user trips over a loose or damaged carpet in the hallway.

Not reportable

■ A service user falls and breaks a leg. They were identified as not requiring special supervision or falls prevention equipment. There are no slips or trips obstructions or defects in the premises or environment, nor any other contributory factors.

Not RIDDOR in my view.

Someone being anaware of their surroundings and tripping on a roadside curb due to being distracted by their own actions is nothing to do with a work related activity.

I'm not sure whether this is reportable or not.

First, as Rounduit probably knows, I don't think that the HSE guidance on RIDDOR is worth the paper it is written on, partly as it seems to be written with an eye to giving people excuses NOT to report some incidents that HSE probably doesn't want to hear about - which is good from an HSE statistical reporting perspective as well. Numbers end up looking smaller when benchmarked against European counterparts.

So, I always think that one needs to look at each case on its merits by reference to the Regulations, NOT the guidance on them.

In this particular case, I think the question might be whether the kerb should reasonably have been there.

Roads come with kerbs. Peeople trip on kerbs. For decades we have worked towards reducing the number of kerbs e.g. to enable better mobility impaired access.

So whilst the usual rule is that RIDDOR reportability is nowt to do with liability in this case perhaps liability is an issue.

Should the reasonable employer/occupier of premises have done away with the kerb? If the kerb wasn't there would this person have been liable to suffer the same accident and injury? If the kerb was clearly something that should have been removed then perhaps the accident is reportable [always assuming that it met the other criteria for reporting].

Hi WatsonD

A couple of assumptions there which an investigation might or might not support! However nothing in the original posting to indicate that either is true.

We have lowered kerbs for improved mobility at crossing points. 

If this is a hospital grounds then the IP was not following the designated path

We don't know the circumstances of where the Injured Person actually fell.

I do agree that it is reasonable to expect that roads come with kerbs, so that if for example the Injured Person fell at the edge whilst walking ALONG a path, this would be unlikely to fall within the scope of RIDDOR reportability, though there might be exceptions e.g. if the path was too narrow for its purpose, so forcing people to walk very close to the edge. 

The footpath in my street was probably fit for purpose when constructed in circa 1880. Nobody would have anticipated that the local Observatory would be replaced with a secondary school. Today whilst walking up the street I was forced onto the carriageway due to the volume of pupils walking down the street, with none deciding to give up some space!

Most of my local hospitals do have paths with raised kerbs.

These lead staff and visitors to accessible crossing points over internal roads.

Outside the entrances though the kerb is recessed so that it sits on a level between the road tarmac and paving.

This isn't legal advice...The only scenario in which the hospital could be liable is if the curb was in a dangerous condition (e.g., broken, uneven, unmarked step, or poor lighting). If the curb was perfectly normal, then the hospital has not breached its duty.

Unless evidence emerges that the curb was in a dangerous condition, the injured party has no strong basis for a claim. The admission of distraction weakens the case further. 

and it isn't RIDDOR...  :)