Oh dear. An honourable pusuit in theory, as I am very vocal on sensible risk assessment and risk management. However, based on the arguments on this forum on what is and was isn't a significant risk I suspect you will find no agreement here.

Personally, having been trained by the HSE, I have quite a sensible approach based on not assessing every day risks, such as making and carrying a cup of tea. But to such statements I will always be accused of not taking the risk of a scalding hot drinks seriously enough!

So, you have to make your own mind up on this one I'm afraid.

I thought the old yardstick still held true. We do not consider every-day or trivial issues unless the work activity compounds that risk.
Thus Starbucks doesn't get away with ignoring scalding issues (neither do those involved with care of vulnerable groups).
Crossing the road becomes an issue for those placing signage on high speed roads, etc.
?

Thanks for responses and assumed as much really, yes the MHSW regs to say discount everyday risks "Insignificant risks can usually be ignored, as can risks arising from routine activities associated with life in general".

Working for an American company in the petrochem Industry we tend to be risk averse and try to cover every eventuality, so will have to formalise my training package to cover both aspects.

Agree with the sentiments regarding everyday activities, there are clear definitions and guidelines regarding this and what constitutes a work place hazard with risks requiring assessment and subsequent control. What I always keep in mind is what is "reasonable". Is it "reasonable" to undertake a risk assessment and give training to all office staff on how to safely make a cup of tea? No. Is it reasonable to establish various controls (sound proof booths, worker rotation, ear defenders) for operators in a block factory where the noise levels is consistently above 85dB(A)? Yes.

To muddy waters the question is what risk are you assessing?
The actual task/ The system/the business?
Is it not how you define the RA process that is the starting point and as others have said what is significant to one company may not be significant to another if it isnt high profile in the business.
What gets more complicated is where you have an organisation like a public body say for instance the Council or NHS where the business is very diverse. DEpending on what sector of the body you are working in might have an effect but due to resource shortages everybody is fighting to say their risk is more significant than another because it directly affects them. Which is the more significant risk. Undertaking Brain surgery or a Community Nurse visiting an elderly patient at night in a known drug and violent area where serious injury has been sustained in the past by NHS workers?
I would develop a hazard register first then carry out some form of RA and then undertake a cost versus risk analysis.
I remember that I was taught by an Australian chap a formula which included as well as the usual elements, The number of people exposed and the maxiumum probable loss. In essence he was moneyterising risk!
So If the total cost of someone falling and being killed was say 2 million but 5 thousand people had bad backs due to work in the organisation that totalled a cost of 15 million which is the more significant risk?
Food for thought!

Surely number of people exposed and frequency of exposure are part of the likelihood?

See your point but not always Kate - the likelihood of the tiger getting out of the cage is one thing, how many people will be in the room for his dinner at 12:00 sharp may differ.

So you would put 'getting scalded by tea' on every risk assessment then?

Good Luck if you find a definitive answer I pl;ease share.

There's some good advice already here but to expand an what ClareL and others have said I would agree completely that you don't need a risk assessment for someone making a few cups of tea in an office but in a restaurant situation where staff are expected to carry trays of hot food and boiling water up and down starts as part of their job activity I would see it as a significant risk.

If you are dealing with a high hazard process where there really is a possibility of killing 1500 people in a single event, then you wouldn't use a 3 x 3 matrix.

If a 3 x 3 matrix isn't capturing the severities or prioritising the rankings of the events being assessed, then it's not adequate to the job and that's why further analysis is found to be needed. You could equally achieve that by using a larger matrix that contains the distinctions you need.

My point is that it all does come from the likelihood and severity of the event, whatever route you take to arrive at the final ranking.

Now here is an interesting case "hot off the press"...

http://www.lexology.com/contributors/786/

Look up the case under the title "Employer not liable for simple everyday acts"

Phil

I can understand there being no liability for her just falling off the stool, but he fact she had to stand on tip toe suggests the equipment supplied was not fit for purpose. I would have been nice to have a bit more of the storey and exactly what the court said. I wonder if there was an expectation that the person when finding they could not reach should have not continued the activity in that way.

I doubt the HSE would agree with that statement in this instance and there's no way I'd use it as an example of employer immunity. IMHO the "simple, everday act" of retrieving documents requires a bit more consideration of safe access and egress in the circumstance described.

AK,
Well spotted - my eyes glazed over when I saw the UK tag but having looked at that well know search engine.... the Success Employment Agency is based in Hong Kong. Apologies for settting us all off on a wild goose chase.

Now here's a question:

What was legal system in HK? I'll bet it used to be based on UK law.... prior to handing back
What is it now? Sounds as if they still have a ngeligence based approach for civil cases..?

As for wishing for more detail - don't we always want that? just goes go show that for (the bulk) of unreported cases a short legal summary prepared by lawyers is never sufficient for us risk management types!! And there is a message there for all those who post seeking "case law"

Very few cases go to court
Generally those that have a point of law to prove/decide
and
Whilst there may be general issue at stake the relevance may be limited

Phil

In theory Hong Kong law is still based in English Common law BUT this has evolved in it’s own way. Occasionally court rulings from one system are treated as a persuasive precedent by another but I guess this one won’t be (in England at least)

Grahem

RA is just common sense though isn't it:-)

Unfortunately politics, culture and ability enter the equation somewhere. Do you remember the pictures of the 1920-30s from the US where native American people were employed as steel erectors because they had no fear of heights or death?

Bob