Not sure exactly what you mean...would amending RIDDOR reduce the number of claims? I fail to see a tangible connection. Anyone can make a claim, regardless of whether it is a RIDDOR injury or not. 

The problem arises not from RIDDOR but from the different ways in which the Civil and Criminal legal systems work and the way cases are proven.  In part the problem also relates to the changes introduced by the Wolff Reforms in the 1990s and further changes to protocols and timescales that have been introduced more recently.  Changing RIDDOR would have no effect on people claiming for personal injury relating to manual handling

As said RIDDOR is a statutory requirement to notify the HSE of an incident that has occurred in your workplace. It is not an admission of civil liability. As said anybody can claim for an injury at work at any time irrespective of whether a RIDDOR report has happened or not. The issue is the gutless attitude of some claimants, (in particular some insurance companies) who would rather pay up rather than go to court. I have been involved in cases where a  doctor has judged that there is no evidence that a musculoskeletal injury   was caused by work but we still paid rather than go to court. If you do look at the cases that do go to court, it is in reality quite hard for a claimant to be successful but we still give up too easily

Originally Posted by: Mr Insurance

Previously, any breach of HASAW would hold an employer liable for any personal injury claims irresepctive of whether they were negligent. A statutory breach was enought to show the employer hadnt operated a safe system of work (or similar).

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 has removed this burden so there is no longer a civil liability arising out of any breach of the act. For accidents post 1st Oct 2013, an injured employee therefore has to prove negligence rather than a breach of  legislation in order to be succesful. 

You never could sue for a breach of the act itself only the regulations. but yes now breach of statutory breach as far as H&S is concerned is out

Sweep, safety culture is a rather amorphous conceot but definitely includes the willingness of employees to make negligence claims and the situations that lead them to make claims. Remove that from any consideration and you are left with something that does not truly reflect the organisation's safety culture.

The key word in your 2nd question is "reasonable". What is reasonable to me may be very different to you and different again to your employees, their Union, your insurers and a Judge in Court. The only real answer that is legally valid is the Judge's but the cost of finding this out is usually gigantic, hence the ever-present uncertainty on whether your safety regime is sufficiently robust.

Always remember, lawyers write laws and lawyers make their living from the law!

Sweep

' Yes, provided......!  is my answer to your question:

'No matter how developed the control measures are can we really demonstrate that we have done all that is reasonable in relation to manual handling.

The proviso is that prevending musculoskeletal and other injuries associated with manual handling requires more than 'control' measures.  Other relevant measures include insrruction, information and reminders, training and supply of appropriate equipment for handling loads.