Rank: Forum user 
|
please help. I'm getting a bit confused about the expression 'arising out of or in connection with work activity'.
An employee parks his car on a public road, walks around the other side of the car to get files out of the car. He slipped on the Curb of the pavement and fractured a bone in his foot. he will be off for more than 7 days. Is this 'in connection with work activity' and RIDDOR reportable?
Thanks if anyone can help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If on company business then yes (I think) but more experienced folks will be here to help with this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
was he driving the car to work or was he already at work and on his way to meet a client let's say?
In the first case no not AT work second case yes( I guess)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
That's my understanding too.
AT work or NOT at work.
However... one of my last employers counted driving TO WORK as being 'on duty' and would have reported this kind of thing. BUT that was the emergency services so I suppose were never really off duty as our contracts specified that we could be recalled to duty at any time.
So I suppose, does your firm regard driving to work as AT WORK too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This phrase often causes confusion so you are not alone!
Basing my view on the details you have provided, & if this activity was during the course of his work, then I would report it if he is off for >7 days.
Zyggy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
So here it gets all stupid (IMO). Employee on a public road - not company premises or company car park. The circumstances as described could mean the employee was arriving at work or travelling between sites. It doesn't really matter.
My question is this (after RIDDOR action if that is what you decide) -
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ACCIDENT - WHAT CONCLUSIONS ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE - AND WHAT CONTROL MEASURES ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT A RE-OCCURRENCE?
The world in my opinion has gone mad because my questions cannot be answered. The employee would have to sue the highway if the pavement or kerb was damaged in any way.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
@rich777
But as with everything in life it depends...
Arising form investigation...
1) I would investigate by talking to the person who was injured + witnesses + maybe have a look? All depends on seriousness.
2) conclusions: - who know's maybe to log it and nothing else it or maybe...
3) Control measures
Footwear
type of car
Location of parking (should we establish loading bay next to entrance?)
etc
Why can't this be investigated? Agreed control measures might be outside the scope of our control - hence the investigation might take a few minutes: OR we might find a trend, a root cause we didn't expect and might be able to make things safer?
BTW
It's Friday and you did shout!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rich,
I tend to agree with your sentiments, but the question posed was whether the injury was reportable or not under RIDDOR.
I realise that there are proposals to "tinker" with RIDDOR, but in my opinion, it needs a total re-draft as it is not relevant for many of our diverse industries & if it continually throws up uncertainties (just look how many threads there are on this Forum), then it just shows what a poor piece of legislation it actually is.
Zyggy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The confusion is with what RIDDOR is about.
It is not about accepting any form of liability (civil) or culpability (criminal).
Nor is RIDDOR about whether you should be investigating issues (there is no legal requirement to investigate only to report and (under reg 3 of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to review the risk assessments).
RIDDOR is solely for the benefit of the HSE (and the European Agency for Safety and Health) so that they have some stats for their processes. That is it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
rich777 wrote:
My question is this (after RIDDOR action if that is what you decide) -
Rich
I was answering that question - no confusion for us, but it is late on a Friday :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Wow, thanks guys. Always a grey area Riddor. I think the sentiment is 'was he on the way to work or at work'. I will ask the individual and RIDDOR depending on his answer. This was a normal Curb by the side of the road and as he stated, 'just one of those accidents'. No trends amongst any other staff doing the same.
Fully investigated, just forgot to ask the 1 question.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
as others have said - if he was on work business then it should be reportable. Note all the info as you would on the report - safe to report than to not. Its really just one of those accidents - that could not be prevented by control measures - as said on other posts - how far do we go with assessments!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have to disagree with you all. Being at work is not the criteria it is arising out of a work activity. Getting out of a car on a public road and slipping on the curb is not a work related activity IMO. It is something the employer has no control over. It is a routine daily activity (as is walking up and down stairs, making a cup of tea etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I’m with Clairel on this one, thats how I see it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
'Ivor', you are not alone in being confused and the expression isn't well defined in the regs and I can't help but feel that the guidance could use some better examples to try and remove some of the ambiguity.
However, please note that the expression used in the regs is ‘Arising out of or in connection with work’ - note that the word 'activity' is NOT used in reg 2 (2) (c).
The guidance says "‘Arising out of or in connection with work’ has a very wide meaning and 35 regulation 2(2)(c) does not give a complete definition.....three key factors ..... must be taken into account.......The broad meaning of ‘arising out of or in connection with work’ means that an accident may still be reportable even if there had been no breach of health and safety law and no one was clearly to blame.".
I'm not sure if that helps at all to be honest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
But ther ACOP gives three key factors in determing 'arising out of or in connection with work', including 'the manner of conducting an undertaking', which it states' refers to the way in which any WORK ACTIVITY is being carried out'.
They may have been at work but slipping on a curb on a public highway is not in connection with work IMO. You have to look at the spirit of the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wasn't disagreeing with you; if only I were that brave!!! Nor do I disagree with your reasoning (as such).
My post did refer to the 3 factors, which are incidentally actually part of the REGULATION 2 (2) (c) and are expanded on in the GUIDANCE.
I don't think that it is entirely clear, and as always it is an 'individual' decision on whether to report or not. In this case it may be reasonable to justify that it is not reportable on the basis of the 3 factors referred to in 2 (2) (c) and the guidance. Others may agree or disagree, including the HSE or magistrate; I don't know as I am not blessed with that degree of foresight.
Caps used for emphasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
When I have these RIDDOR doubt moments, as discussed, where there is clearly just one of those things, the employer has no control etc. I think on the objective of the regs, which is to collect national data on work accidents based on injury severity.
This data is then mainly used to determine where the HSE should target their resources.
That usually helps my decision-making.
Another bit of guidance relating to RIDDOR dilemmas is EDIS1 for accidents in schools - the car / kerb / working / 'arising from' is very similar to the school examples given which are NOT reportable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have been "working" with RIDDOR 1995, previously 1985 & even before that NADOR for many years & the legislation & guidance that goes with it still throws up queries on a regular basis.
Given the details so far on this case, & the excellent reasons for & against reporting it, could I just alter the scenario with regards to the injury & change it to either a fatality or major injury, but the situation surrounding the incident remain the same?
Would you report it or not?
Zyggy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I still think it would be non reportable in the same way that heart attacks at work are non reportable (unless a direct result of what they were doing at work).
I understand what you are saying though and I'm sure many people would ring the HSE with any fatality 'just to be on the safe side'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
think Claire has the answer - ring RIDDOR and ask them .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unfortunately you can no longer do that Daisy Maisy - the call centre no longer exists…………..
You have to make the judgment yourself……………..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unfortunately you can no longer do that Daisy Maisy - the call centre no longer exists…………..
You have to make the judgment yourself……………..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DaisyMaisy wrote:think Claire has the answer - ring RIDDOR and ask them .....
errr.....I didn't say that. I don't think it is reportable. My reference to reporting was in relation to Ziggy's hypothetical question and even then I said I wouldn't report but I understand why most people would. DP - fatalities and majors are still to be reported by phone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
And this one is actually a major injury as it's a fracture, making the 7 days irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes Clairel,
I was making a general comment regarding that you cant get general guidance over the phone any longer. It used to be a handy service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.