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
chris42  
#1 Posted : 26 March 2015 16:38:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I noticed this on the HSE web site, sorry its a bit old 2013, but didn't understand why they could not be held responsible for the employees death. ? Surly the inadequate training was the root cause of the death.

Would any of you learned people know more. I tried Google but all reports seemed to say the same as the HSE page (word for word).

http://press.hse.gov.uk/...-firesafe-installations/

Chris
toe  
#2 Posted : 26 March 2015 23:32:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

Having just read the information supplied in the link, I can only think that the death may have been caused by being crushed or trapped. The firm was only guilty of inadequate training i.e. in failing to train the person to use the emergency controls to bring it down.

So... the death was not caused (or could have been prevented) because it could not be brought down, however, maybe the person may have survived if the lift was brought down and the person given medical treatment, who knows.
RayRapp  
#3 Posted : 27 March 2015 08:10:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I agree it is difficult to assess the culpability based on the HSE summary. However the prima facie does suggest the fatality may have been preventable with inter alia, better training. I find it difficult to understand how with all the legal requirements something as basic as proper training still gets overlooked. Who the hell is managing these people?! Moreover the fine given the gravity of the outcome does seem pathetic.

I was reading SHP yesterday and noticed two other fatalities. Once again the sentences imposed by the courts are a disgrace in my opinion.

http://www.shponline.co....ce-warehouse-roof-death/

http://www.shponline.co....d-following-death-diver/
Xavier123  
#4 Posted : 27 March 2015 10:57:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

Two relevant bits of news for you then:

First. H&S offence fines are now essentially unlimited even in Magistrates Court.

https://www.gov.uk/gover...nes-for-serious-offences


Second. Here is the recently closed consultation for the proposed new H&S sentencing guidelines. Headline: substantial increase (think x10) in fines is anticipated.

https://consult.justice....onsultationguideline.pdf
Dean Elliot  
#5 Posted : 07 April 2015 08:06:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dean Elliot

Chris42 wrote:


"but didn't understand why they could not be held responsible for the employees death. ? Surly the inadequate training was the root cause of the death. "


It doesn't attribute the quote. It is likely that this was said by the defence in mitigation. They were prosecuted because of the accident so that is clearly not the case.

Maybe that comment reduced the level of fine - I've seen stranger things happen
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.