Hi bxuxa
I don't think it's reportable but for different reasons to those cited by the Snail.
The Royal We don't love RIDDOR in its current form, but then We were not in love with the previous iteration of RIDDOR, We disliked NADOR intensely and We were not particularly enamoured by Sections 80-82 of the Factories Act 1961 and the parallel legislation that applied to some sectors other than factories (and so called 'notional factories').
First you have to consider whether this person was "at work" a term defined in Section 52 of HSWA and I think the answer to that is YES as any worker should be entitled to a "comfort break" - during the course of his employment (LOTS of case law on interpreting those wordsand the Interpretation Act 1978 tells you to interpret his and including her)
Next you have to consider whether this was a "work-related accident" and I am not going to make judgement on that, but would note that I would treat the HSE guidance with a huge pinch of salt. So may be, may be not.
What I am certainly NOT going to say is the parameter is whether the kerb was part of "premises" as that is a defined term in Section 53 of HSWA which says:
" premises " includes any place and, in particular, includes—
(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft,
(b) any installation on land (including the foreshore and other land intermittently covered by water), any offshore installation, and any other installation (whether floating, or resting on the seabed or the subsoil thereof, or resting on other land covered with water or the subsoil thereof), and
(c) any tent or movable structure ;
The important bit are the words "any place" but the rest serves to remind us that "premises" doesn't need any physical structures (even though arguably the kerb is part of a structure).
However, the reason why this is not reportable in my opinion is mostly for exactly the same reason why the vast majority of work=related transportation accidents are not reportable even if they meet the seveity threshold for e.g. an "over 7 day injury" accident.
You have to go towards the end of RIDDOR to find key exceptions to its scope including Regulation 14(3):
(3) Where the injury or death of a person arises out of or in connection with the movement of a vehicle on a road, the requirements of regulations 4, 5, 6 and 12(1)(b) do not apply, UNLESS that person—
(a) was injured or killed by an accident involving a train;
(b) was injured or killed by exposure to a substance being conveyed by the vehicle;
(c) was engaged in work connected with the loading or unloading of any article or substance onto or off the vehicle at the time of the accident, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was so engaged; or
(d) was engaged in, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was at the time of the accident engaged in, work on or alongside a road.
If the driver had been unloading then we could have a debate about whether the incident met the requirement for the incident to be "work-related". But if they were just stopping for a "comfort break" then it seems to me that the incident is outside the scope of RIDDOR.
Edited by user 09 July 2025 15:58:12(UTC)
| Reason: Typo