Afternoon all.

Was having a discussion with someone a short while ago ref the following Scenario.

Self employed person is working for a building contractor on a 6 month contract, as they have had an increase in work and need extra staff for a temporary period. The self employed person has his own ladders which are kept on top of his van. The self employed person goes to retrieve a ladder from the van at the start of the day, but struggles to get one of the ladders off of his van's roof rack, so climbs on to the roof and ends up falling off. He sustains a serious serious head injury, is knocked unconcious and is taken to hospital via ambulance. Treatment is given in hospital and he is required to stay in for a short time due tot he injuries sustained.  

The questions he asked me was: Who is responsible for reporting this (I am confident it is the 'end user' aka the company that has employed his services) and if the HSE did pay a visit, who would they initialy investigate, the company using his services or the self employed person.

I dont deal with contractors in my industry so didnt really know the answer and the legal technicalities (if any), but said I will put it on this group as im sure someone out there knows the answer.

Thanks in advance!

Your description of events doesn't convince me there was a specified (RIDDOR) injury to report.

In the event the self-employed person was unable to carry out his normal duties >7 days then the onus would seem to rest very obviously with that person.

not 7 day, it will be Reg 4(1g) of  RIDDOR

Quote

"He sustains a serious serious head injury, is knocked unconcious" 

Originally Posted by: Ron Hunter

 My "frolic" reference still valid I think.

Not sure, RIDDOR does cover loading and unloading, where other RTI's are not generally, so they seem to think it is work. I'm guessing the van was not on site as such but in the street, so is it on site ????  and so, contractor responsibility - not sure. If van on site, I would say it was the person in charge of site also, and sounds like it is work related to me. He needed the ladders to do the job, so fetching the ladders is part of the job.

Im with Ron on this one.  If you look at HSE's definition of an accident and then at the scenario given, then this is not an accident.  The scenario is that the ladders are on the roof of the van.  The ladders are not in a dangerous situation or falling etc.  so the individual was not involved in an accident.

Therefore, not withstanding the injury suffered and the lack of working safely, it is not reportable under RIDDOR.

The HSE website clearly states:

"Regulations 4 - 6 cover the reporting of work-related deaths and injuries other than for certain gas incidents[1] RIDDOR requires deaths and injuries to be reported only when:

• there has been an accident which caused the injury
• the accident was work-related
• the injury is of a type which is reportable

What is an ‘accident’?

In relation to RIDDOR, an accident is a separate, identifiable, unintended incident, which causes physical injury. This specifically includes acts of non-consensual violence to people at work.

Injuries themselves, eg ‘feeling a sharp twinge’, are not accidents. There must be an identifiable external event that causes the injury, eg a falling object striking someone. Cumulative exposures to hazards, which eventually cause injury (eg repetitive lifting), are not classed as ‘accidents’ under RIDDOR."

For the scenario to be considered a RIDDOR reportable incident then all three of the criteria MUST be met. In the scenario given the injured person climbed up onto the van.  This is an intended event.  There is no identifable external event that causes the injury (i.e. the person was knocked off the roof or the van was hit by something causing a fall).

I feel that maybe sometimes people get caught-up in the effects and not looking at the cause. 

Originally Posted by: Ron Hunter

(In response to Xavier123's repsonse).

If only life were so simple. In this instance (as described) the person in control of the site would IMO be perfectly justified in concluding that the incident was not work-related (using the HSE's own guidance).

The IP was essentially on a frolic of his own.

I am a big fan of arguing the work-related test under RIDDOR and often do.  However I struggle to agree that collecting ladders off the van for the purposes of undertaking work is not work related.  Were it not for the work activity this accident would never have arisen.

He may well have been on a frolic of his own as to the manner in which they were gathered but the purpose of his actions remains for the purposes of an underaking of work.  In point of fact, the accident almost certainly arose entirely due to the way in which the work was carried out - the first listed matter for consideration on the HSE's web guidance.  There is no 'horseplay' exemption under RIDDOR. Their safety behaviours, rightfully raised, would surely be considered during the investigation when examining whether any blame could be attached to the person in control of the site etc. which is a separate matter.  I agree that the site might have a very easy time divesting themselves of responsibility for his actions!

However this argument essentially allows for the dismissal of all matters of demonstrable indiscipline as not being RIDDOR reportable - which is surely incorrect.

The guy was injured whilst at work and undertaking a work activity - reportable under RIDDOR

The employer should report, but since this guy is self employed he should report it himself or arrange for someone to report it; but the easiest is for the contractor he was working for to report it

IMO The owner of the premises reports dangerous occurrences on his site, not accidents unless it is one of his employees.

Yes, I am with Ray/Xavier on this.

A frolic on one's own is completely outside the course of employment-a phrase even more subjected to case law than reasonably practicable-and as such it does not describe the issue under discussion which is doing an authorised job of work but doing it wrongly, negligently or unlawfully.

As he is self employed he may not have the benefit of vicarious liablity although that may depend on the degree of control.

In this day and age of precarious work he may not even be self employed, see Uber et al, and thus might even be an employee and neatly be covered by vicarious liablity.

Definitely RIDDOR anyway.

Regards

Mike

As an Ex HSE Construction inspector who has spent 5 years looking at the issue of falls from work vehicles, this is an interesting question.

To clarify, this is not only a RIDDOR reportable accident, but a forseeable one and it has been established previously that the roof of a van in this scenario IS a work place.

With regards to the falls from height, there is a lot of case law regarding the fall from the van. Have a look here on my project website: http://www.veps.co.uk/the-law.html or the 'links' page for more details.

With regards to the employment status of the IP, if he was under contract to the employer at the time, and under the direction and control of another, it is there that the HSE investigation would primarilly be focussed, but it would of course consider all the wider aspects including the IP's responsibility.

Such is the life of an HSE inspector - who is responsible, and who is MOST responsible..... there is no 'Right answer', but it's a matter of opinion formed from the facts. In this case though, the investigation would centre on the employer. If it was a self employed IP parked off site, the investigation would be different, but the impact on the individual would be the same, so best avoided either way!

Hope that helps

Al

Edited by user 03 April 2017 08:38:07(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified