Rank: Forum user 
|
Task -Delivery driver making deliveries to high st. He unloads two tote bins from his van, loads them onto a sack truck and delivers them. On the way back he misplaces his foot on the kerb goes over and sprains his ankle going to be off for approx 10 days . Nothing wrong with the kerb this was visited as part of the investigation and luckily we got CCTV from the shop he was delivering to, so can clearly see he simply misplaced his foot and went over
So Riddor or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bill6152 wrote:Task -Delivery driver making deliveries to high st. He unloads two tote bins from his van, loads them onto a sack truck and delivers them. On the way back he misplaces his foot on the kerb goes over and sprains his ankle going to be off for approx 10 days . Nothing wrong with the kerb this was visited as part of the investigation and luckily we got CCTV from the shop he was delivering to, so can clearly see he simply misplaced his foot and went over
So Riddor or not? I'd report this one
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I wouldn't, he miss placed his foot, nothing to impede him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
He was at work and he had an accident which resulted in an injury - reportable. It doesn't matter whose fault it was - RIDDOR is not about apportioning blame, it's about recording injuries arising from a workplace situation. As he will be off for more than 7 days it falls under the criteria.
Now, if he had been at lunch and fell off the kerb going back to his truck that would not have been reportable because he was not conducting work activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm with Hilary, work-related, report it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Great post by Hilary - reportable.
One of the purposes of RIDDOR is for the HSE to collate national accident/incident statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Please read the Guidance: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...nitions.htm#work-relatedRIDDOR only requires you to report accidents if they happen ‘out of or in connection with work’. The fact that there is an accident at work premises does not, in itself, mean that the accident is work-related – the work activity itself must contribute to the accident. An accident is ‘work-related’ if any of the following played a significant role: the way the work was carried out any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wouldn,t there has to be some fault and here there isn't he misplaced his foot, the kerb was checked, altough as he is on the queens highway there is nothing the company can do about that, CCTV shows he misplaced his foot. It's a 'NO' from me.
Ok we have it were I work, a person in a care home, trips over own foot due to losing balance for no apparent reason, is taken directly to hospital 'member of public' investigation shows nothing wrong with the area. It's not reportable because there has to be something that we did for the person to fall. i.e loose carpet, tear in carpet, trailing cable etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David Bannister wrote:Please read the Guidance: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...nitions.htm#work-relatedRIDDOR only requires you to report accidents if they happen ‘out of or in connection with work’. The fact that there is an accident at work premises does not, in itself, mean that the accident is work-related – the work activity itself must contribute to the accident. An accident is ‘work-related’ if any of the following played a significant role: the way the work was carried out any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened. David, it's a moot point. The guidance does not state there must be a 'fault' identified with the work, machinery...or the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened. I can recall an incident where an operative tripped and fell on railway infrastructure resulting in an over 7 day injury. No fault was ever established because the permanent way is full of tripping hazards, indeed if it was a construction site it would be shut down by the HSE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I just love these RIDDOR posts - just goes to show how much Health and Safety is down to opinion.
Reading these posts help me consolidate my ideas, thanks to all the contributors - even those I think are just plain wrong, you make me think about things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Graham wrote:I just love these RIDDOR posts - just goes to show how much Health and Safety is down to opinion.
Reading these posts help me consolidate my ideas, thanks to all the contributors - even those I think are just plain wrong, you make me think about things.
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thats why I have posted a couple of questions about Riddor from real incidents we have had . If it was that clear from the HSE guidance would not have to ask. But even when asked to HSE colleges we still get yes/no, not sure, so it cant be that clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bill6152 wrote:Thats why I have posted a couple of questions about Riddor from real incidents we have had . If it was that clear from the HSE guidance would not have to ask. But even when asked to HSE colleges we still get yes/no, not sure, so it cant be that clear. Bill, I think we would ALL agree with that!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bill6152 wrote:Task -Delivery driver making deliveries to high st. He unloads two tote bins from his van, loads them onto a sack truck and delivers them. On the way back he misplaces his foot on the kerb goes over and sprains his ankle going to be off for approx 10 days. From what is said above, one has to assume that on the way back he still had the sack truck. He would have been returning this to his van - both the sack truck and the van are work equipment so quite clearly he was undertaking a work activity at the time of the accident. RIDDOR only asks that it is work related and to my mind, this is not in doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
But it doesn't ask only that it happens while carrying out a work activity - it asks that one of the three criteria quoted above by David applies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
For me its a yes, report it. This driver was carrying out his work and as a result sustained the injury, regardless of where the fault lies. The fact he works 'on the road' means he was in his place of work.
But that's what makes this job so interesting, so many different and conflicting points of view!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm in the NO camp on this one - no work activity just walking on a public street.
And, in any way, how could the employer either foresee the incident or prevent it.
Note: The regulations do not say 'at work' or ' carrying out his work' is says a 'work activity'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Toe wrote:I'm in the NO camp on this one - no work activity just walking on a public street.
And, in any way, how could the employer either foresee the incident or prevent it.
Note: The regulations do not say 'at work' or ' carrying out his work' is says a 'work activity'. If he was on his lunch break or finishing work for the day then fair enough. However he was returning back to his work vehicle with work equipment - he was in fact working or carrying out a 'work activity' if you prefer. I agree about foreseeability, but employers are not expected to eradicate every risk and subsequent accident/incident. In some accidents there could be contributory negligence, but it makes no difference whatsoever if its a RIDDOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course the employer might assist the IP with a claim against the LA if there are any specific technical issues with the say the evenness of the footway or the height of the kerb - all of which the employer is deemed to have assessed for the work activity involved.!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Report.
It was while handling a piece of work equipment.
Accepted it was an honest mistake but it still happened while at work and would affect his domestic activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Not reportable - as above not work related
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Example - We had a Care Worker walking from one house to the next (houses next to each other) carrying medication in low light. She tripped over a tow bar on a vehicle fell and injured her arm - off work for more that 7 days. We reported it to HSE and they said it was not reportable, no work activity she was just travelling from house to house despite carrying the medication for work purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
H&S Law is well crafted.
There is a difference between 'working' and 'work activity',
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Over 7-day injuries are not 'work-related', they 'arising out of or in connection with work'. This is a broader category; your injury was 'in connection' with work, it's reportable,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
David at #7 has it in a nutshell
If it doesn't meet the three criteria stated, then it wouldn't be reportable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I swear I hear a Clap of Thunder and see a subsequent lightening bolt every time the dreaded RIDDOR word is mentioned. :-)
Is part of the reason for the fear is it looks bad on our KPI's?, and some senior Management just see it as poor performance and blame it on the H&S people?
As for the guy slipping, I can't help but think about an incident I came across years ago when the persons supplied safety shoes were so worn down the tread was smooth and gave no grip an so contributed to the slip..... just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
scoen, exactly; it's easy to say he 'just misplaced his foot', but....
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.