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
Bill6152  
#1 Posted : 11 September 2017 09:59:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Bill6152

IP stepped out of the rear of the vehicle, he put his left foot on the the road surface, public highway  and his foot / ankle turned on itself. IP reported this was because of ruts in the tarmac caused by vehicle usage over time Resulted in fractured ankle

Hsquared14  
#2 Posted : 11 September 2017 10:09:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

Was this in the course of his working duties?

Bill6152  
#3 Posted : 11 September 2017 10:26:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Bill6152

Yes he was stepping out of the van before making a delievery

hilary  
#4 Posted : 11 September 2017 11:16:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

I would say it is reportable as it arose out of or in connection with a work activity and he was at work at the time.

safetydude1  
#5 Posted : 11 September 2017 12:30:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
safetydude1

Reportable - IMHO, fracture is (Other than finger, thumb, toe) likely to be 7 day and during course of work activity. 

watcher  
#6 Posted : 11 September 2017 13:51:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
watcher

Hmm, I would have said not reportable, unless he was lifting something out of the rear of the vehicle.

If he simply turned his ankle getting out of a van, that wouldn't be work related.  Unless the access from the vehicle means that he has to jump down from a height.

If I get up now, and walk across to my office door, to access another part of the building, and go over on my ankle, it wouldn't be work related.  I don't see this as being any different

(unless there was a big trip hazard in my way and I went over that)

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 11 September 2017 21:14:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Aaaaghhh!!!!

Please iosh - there are enough of these posts, publish a summary document of these "report or not" or press the HSE to improve their guidance.

The breadth of opinions is now making me doubt my personal check list

Perhaps we should do it the other way - swamp the HSE with reports so that they are forced to provide definitive guidance since the current seems so woefully lacking

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
lorna on 12/09/2017(UTC), Tomkins26432 on 12/09/2017(UTC), lorna on 12/09/2017(UTC), Tomkins26432 on 12/09/2017(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 11 September 2017 21:14:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Aaaaghhh!!!!

Please iosh - there are enough of these posts, publish a summary document of these "report or not" or press the HSE to improve their guidance.

The breadth of opinions is now making me doubt my personal check list

Perhaps we should do it the other way - swamp the HSE with reports so that they are forced to provide definitive guidance since the current seems so woefully lacking

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
lorna on 12/09/2017(UTC), Tomkins26432 on 12/09/2017(UTC), lorna on 12/09/2017(UTC), Tomkins26432 on 12/09/2017(UTC)
chris42  
#9 Posted : 12 September 2017 09:43:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

reported only when:

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

The big question is this work related. The HSE web site goes on to help with that.

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

From these well you could say that the way it was done was awkward perhaps or they may have jumped out, you will never know. The equipment well let’s assume a normal van not a monster truck, so no special hand holds etc. That just leaves the condition of the site or premises, but the HSE do not specify it is a site under the employers control, just a site any site. From what we were given the site did play a significant part in the accident and you have to get out of the vehicle in order to make the delivery so it is part of the task ( if they were getting out to buy a pasty then different).

So yes, technically it is reportable.

Do the HSE care, possibly not.

Do the no win no fee solicitors care, probably.

I guess I would report it based on the above information.

thanks 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
GHughes1980 on 13/09/2017(UTC)
Zyggy  
#10 Posted : 12 September 2017 10:54:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

Given the information we have so far, I would say that it is not reportable.

My reasoning stems from the "work-related" criteria that has to exist to make it reportable.

The IP stepped on a public highway that is not under the control of the employer; however, if the same scenario was to happen on their own land & there was a defect in the surface, then in my opinion this would tip the balance & make it reportable.

thunderchild  
#11 Posted : 13 September 2017 12:33:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

From my previous experience we WOULD report it as one of our employees has had an injury during the course of their working day whilst undertaking work activities (he cant levitate out of the van). The route cause during the investogation (provided its a back and white as OP has stated) would be uneven ground condition causing IP ankle to turn over. Any subsequent claim for damages would be directed to the person in control of the premises / land owner.

This is providing all PPE was being worn and that should have been boots with ankle support IMHO.

Just my 2p

Yossarian  
#12 Posted : 13 September 2017 15:28:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Yossarian

Originally Posted by: Zyggy Go to Quoted Post

Given the information we have so far, I would say that it is not reportable.

My reasoning stems from the "work-related" criteria that has to exist to make it reportable.

The IP stepped on a public highway that is not under the control of the employer; however, if the same scenario was to happen on their own land & there was a defect in the surface, then in my opinion this would tip the balance & make it reportable.

I'd go with this and suggest the killer question has to be: "is the public highway in the employees control?" For a delivery driver, the answer is no because of the 'public' bit. However for a local authority employee where the LA has responsibility for road maintenance then it might be a yes.

I don't think we have enough information to go on at this stage.

Bill6152  
#13 Posted : 13 September 2017 17:08:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Bill6152

Location was on the public highway outside shop that was being delieved to. The driver was getting out of the vehicle, drivers door placed his foot on the ground and went over. So to add to this it was the transport manager who was doing this delivery and the hospital has confimed small fracture to his ankle, he it at work wearing a support boot. So does not fall within the 7 days absence period but would fall within fractures, other than to fingers, thumbs and toes

Oh how I love Riddor!!!! 

GHughes1980  
#14 Posted : 13 September 2017 18:16:17(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
GHughes1980

I would report this. For the same reason others have mentioned. IP was performing a work function when the accident occured & the injury is a fracture. The method of exiting the vehicle may have been a contributing factor. Did the IP dismount the cab using three points of contact, was visibility of the surface clear etc.

Cheeky Me  
#15 Posted : 13 September 2017 18:58:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Cheeky Me

Hmmm. I have changed my mind so many times while reading these replies, all of them are valid points.. But what if I.P was employed by Yodal? If his delivery was unsucessful he would not have been paid, are you still at "work" when not receiving reward? where would I.P stand in those situations? No pun intended. RIDDOR or no RIDDOR?
billstrak  
#16 Posted : 15 September 2017 04:31:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
billstrak

An old boss of mine always used the analogy that if you are at work at the time of incident; how can it not be work related.......However; from a personal view I would not report. What could the employing company do to prevent such an incident? I would argue very little if anything.

Invictus  
#17 Posted : 15 September 2017 06:22:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Originally Posted by: billstrak Go to Quoted Post

An old boss of mine always used the analogy that if you are at work at the time of incident; how can it not be work related.......However; from a personal view I would not report. What could the employing company do to prevent such an incident? I would argue very little if anything.

He was working that is why he was in the van or getting off the van. RIDDOR regulations don't state that you have to be able to do something about it before it becomes reportable, look at violence in prisons, but i suppose in this case you could always put a step on the back of the van so that they are not stepping so far down from the back iof the van, that's what we did.

fairlieg  
#18 Posted : 15 September 2017 08:14:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Restrictions on the application of regulations 4 to 10

14.—(1) Where the injury or death of a person arises out of the conduct of any operation on, or any examination or other medical treatment of, that person (such operation, examination or other treatment being conducted by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist), the requirements of regulations 4, 5, 6(1) and 12(1)(b) do not apply.

(2) In paragraph (1), “registered dentist” has the meaning given by section 53(1) of the Dentists Act 1984(1).

(3) Where the injury or death of a person arises out of or in connection with the movement of a vehicle on a road, the requirements of regulations 4, 5, 6 and 12(1)(b) do not apply, unless that person—

(a)was injured or killed by an accident involving a train;

(b)was injured or killed by exposure to a substance being conveyed by the vehicle;

(c)was engaged in work connected with the loading or unloading of any article or substance onto or off the vehicle at the time of the accident, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was so engaged; or

(d)was engaged in, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was at the time of the accident engaged in, work on or alongside a road.

Can getting out of a van can be of sufficient proximity to be classed as "engaged in work connected with the loading or unloading of any article or substance onto or off the vehicle at the time of the accident, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was so engaged".  Does this mean you should be physically taking the goods out of the van or putting them on at the time or operating a FLT or pallet truck etc...........

Edited by user 15 September 2017 08:23:23(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

billstrak  
#19 Posted : 17 September 2017 05:59:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
billstrak

Originally Posted by: Invictus Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: billstrak Go to Quoted Post

An old boss of mine always used the analogy that if you are at work at the time of incident; how can it not be work related.......However; from a personal view I would not report. What could the employing company do to prevent such an incident? I would argue very little if anything.

He was working that is why he was in the van or getting off the van. RIDDOR regulations don't state that you have to be able to do something about it before it becomes reportable, look at violence in prisons, but i suppose in this case you could always put a step on the back of the van so that they are not stepping so far down from the back iof the van, that's what we did.

Not saying it is not reportable; just that I wouldnt report the incident through RIDDOR. Based on the post, I would be contacting the local council department for roads and mainitenance. Maybe then the root cause will get sorted.....However based on the condition of most roads in my area and the fiscal constraints.......maybe not
Sweep  
#20 Posted : 17 September 2017 09:46:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Sweep

Incidents that occur at work or in working time are not necessarly work related.  However we should be able to demonstrate an examination of the facts and senior managment involvement in the decision taken.  The decision should be based on fact and not emotion or any other factors that may sway oppinion. 

It is unlikely that where a rational decision regarding reporting has been made, that any further action would be taken by the enforcing authority.  

These discussions always seem to me to miss the point slightly - no offence meant.  The incident will need to be investigated thoroughly and preperations made in the event of civil claim no matter if it is reported or not.  More often than not the key questions will center on the risk assessment dealing with the adverse event, the level of supervision prior to and during the incident and the competency of those involved.  Unfortunatley we all too often fall down on one or more of these points. 

descarte8  
#21 Posted : 20 September 2017 13:50:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
descarte8

I dont know if the following helps at all, as it relates to employers legal duty rather than requirements to report under RIDDOR:

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2014/[2014]CSIH76.html

"It was a risk encountered, at the time of [the] accident, by any person walking on [uneven] pavements, whatever the reason or reasons they had to do so.  There was nothing about the nature of [the] work which caused the risk or exacerbated it.  In the present case, the risk was not a risk that arose from any hazard inherent in the particular job that the respondent was employed to do"

"It is not simply a matter of the existence of a risk, as seems to have been the Lord Ordinary’s approach; no employer is under a duty at common law to address , ameliorate or eliminate every risk which an employee may encounter in the course of the working day."

Redacted a little to make it more relevant

Users browsing this topic
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.