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
Monopoly  
#1 Posted : 20 February 2019 16:50:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Monopoly

Any advice would be appreciated. 

The company I work for own a building that they lease to another company (Comapany A). As part of the lease agreement Company A are responsible for the maintenace and upkeep of the building. 

The building is surrounded by a wire mesh fence and is located in a residential area. A child whilst climbing the fence lost her finger when her ring became stuck. 

1) Is this a RIDDOR? Does it depend upon whether the fence was suitably maintained or not?

2) If it is a RIDDOR I presume Company A need to report it?

Thanks in advance

hsherwoo  
#2 Posted : 20 February 2019 23:59:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
hsherwoo

One assumes that the kid was taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury, otherwise this in itself would make it not RIDDOR reportable.

Secondly, all RIDDOR incidents need to ‘arise out of or in connection with work’. Just because a member of the public gets injured at a workplace and goes direct to hospital etc, this does not automatically mean that it is RIDDOR reportable. There would normally need to be some sort of clear contributory work-related factor - in this instance it could be if there was an actual identifiable defect in the fence, if the kid got her finger stuck on a section of barbed wire and there was no barbed wire warning signage present, if an enticing ladder or other easily climbable object had been left on the outside of the fence by the premises occupier etc. 

A slightly less clear scenario is if the fence is lets say less than 6ft high and therefore might be considered relatively easy/tempting to climb over, depending whats actually on the other side.  The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 stipulates that all employers and the self-employed must take reasonably practical steps to ensure the health and safety of the general public. As such, it implies the need for hoarding or fencing around certain workplaces, even if it doesn’t explicitly state it.  Also, if for example there was a history of kids climbing in due to inadequate height fencing then this might suggest a work-related failing to provide adequate fencing. 

If Company A have responsibility for the maintenance/upkeep of the fence etc and none of the above sort of factors are present then I would suggest that the company documents the incident and makes a deliberate note that they have considered the issue of RIDDOR reportability but have concluded that it is not reportable due to no contributory factor being present. 

HSE guidance on reportability of accident scenarios is fairly thin on the ground but the guidance on health and social care gives the following example which I think supports the above as regards requiring a definite work-related contributory factor: 

Not reportable - A service user falls and breaks a leg. They were identified as not requiring special supervision or falls prevention equipment. There are no slips or trips obstructions or defects in the premises or environment, nor any other contributory factors.

thanks 1 user thanked hsherwoo for this useful post.
WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 21 February 2019 20:47:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

?????????? Member of public taken to AND treated at hospital =RIDDOR report - possibly the clearest and least ambiguous lines in the whole regulation. None of the debate over at work or work related activity or if absence over seven days was directly caused by..... Premises occupier should report but to cover back side as landlord I would want to see the report otherwise I will report on your behalf
Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 21 February 2019 20:47:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

?????????? Member of public taken to AND treated at hospital =RIDDOR report - possibly the clearest and least ambiguous lines in the whole regulation. None of the debate over at work or work related activity or if absence over seven days was directly caused by..... Premises occupier should report but to cover back side as landlord I would want to see the report otherwise I will report on your behalf
Monopoly  
#5 Posted : 21 February 2019 22:26:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Monopoly

]Thanks for the replies although I'm still confused ... On the HSE website it states: "What are ‘reportable’ injuries? The following injuries are reportable under RIDDOR when they result from a work-related accident: The death of any person (Regulation 6)Specified Injuries to workers (Regulation 4)Injuries to workers which result in their incapacitation for more than 7 days (Regulation 4)Injuries to non-workers which result in them being taken directly to hospital for treatment, or specified injuries to non-workers which occur on hospital premises. (Regulation 5)" The words "work related" are used. They also give the following scenario: Q. A member of the public tripped over a trailing cable and hurt herself badly. We didn’t call an ambulance as her friend drove her to a hospital. Is this reportable? A. Yes. You must report cases where a person not at work is injured due to a work-related accident and is taken from your premises to a hospital, by whatever means, for treatment. Sdv Again, they use "work related"
Monopoly  
#6 Posted : 21 February 2019 22:42:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Monopoly

Thanks for the replies although I'm still confused ... On the HSE website it states:

What are ‘reportable’ injuries?

 The following injuries are reportable under RIDDOR when they result from a work-related accident:

 The death of any person (Regulation 6)

 Specified Injuries to workers (Regulation 4)

Injuries to workers which result in their incapacitation for more than 7 days (Regulation 4)

Injuries to non-workers which result in them being taken directly to hospital for treatment, or specified injuries to non-workers which occur on hospital premises. (Regulation 5)

The words "work related" are used.They also give the following scenario:

Q. A member of the public tripped over a trailing cable and hurt herself badly. We didn’t call an ambulance as her friend drove her to a hospital. Is this reportable?

 A. Yes. You must report cases where a person not at work is injured due to a work-related accident and is taken from your premises to a hospital, by whatever means, for treatment.

Again, they use the words "work related"

Zyggy  
#7 Posted : 21 February 2019 23:03:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

Sorry, but you definitely have to consider the work- related aspect before you report a non-employee under RIDDOR! Reg. 5 "where any person not at work, as a result of a work- related accident..."
thanks 3 users thanked Zyggy for this useful post.
WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC), Connor35037 on 22/02/2019(UTC), jwk on 22/02/2019(UTC)
WatsonD  
#8 Posted : 22 February 2019 08:20:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
?????????? Member of public taken to AND treated at hospital =RIDDOR report - possibly the clearest and least ambiguous lines in the whole regulation. None of the debate over at work or work related activity or if absence over seven days was directly caused by..... Premises occupier should report but to cover back side as landlord I would want to see the report otherwise I will report on your behalf

There was a similar thread a short while back, and I believed the same as you until I was informed otherwise.  'Work -related' is still relevant. If you read the legislation (rather than HSE guidance) regulation 5 states:

Non-fatal injuries to non-workers

5.  Where any person not at work, as a result of a work-related accident, suffers—

(a)an injury, and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury; or

(b)a specified injury on hospital premises,

Source: http://www.legislation.g...3/1471/regulation/5/made

Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 22 February 2019 09:14:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Every day's a school day.

So in the definitions section of the Regulation

(2) In these Regulations, any reference to a work-related accident or dangerous occurrence includes an accident or dangerous occurrence attributable to—

(a)the manner of conducting an undertaking;

(b)the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking; or

(c)the condition of the premises used for the purposes of an undertaking or any part of them.

May be just the way I am reading it but the condition of a fence (2c - a part of the premises) would be causal to snagging the ring thereby severing the finger and as such is "work related".

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC), WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#10 Posted : 22 February 2019 09:14:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Every day's a school day.

So in the definitions section of the Regulation

(2) In these Regulations, any reference to a work-related accident or dangerous occurrence includes an accident or dangerous occurrence attributable to—

(a)the manner of conducting an undertaking;

(b)the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking; or

(c)the condition of the premises used for the purposes of an undertaking or any part of them.

May be just the way I am reading it but the condition of a fence (2c - a part of the premises) would be causal to snagging the ring thereby severing the finger and as such is "work related".

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC), WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC)
fairlieg  
#11 Posted : 22 February 2019 11:28:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Every day's a school day.

So in the definitions section of the Regulation

(2) In these Regulations, any reference to a work-related accident or dangerous occurrence includes an accident or dangerous occurrence attributable to—

(a)the manner of conducting an undertaking;

(b)the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking; or

(c)the condition of the premises used for the purposes of an undertaking or any part of them.

May be just the way I am reading it but the condition of a fence (2c - a part of the premises) would be causal to snagging the ring thereby severing the finger and as such is "work related".

Condition implies some kind of defect

Connor35037  
#12 Posted : 22 February 2019 11:39:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Connor35037

Zyggy is correct.

If there was a "health and safety failure" by the controller of premises

eg Fence in a clearly dangerous condition that contributed to the injury

It is RIDDOR-reportable.

Otherwise it is NOT RIDDOR-reportable

Roundtuit  
#13 Posted : 22 February 2019 12:31:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Condition can also, without defect, refer to the quality.

In this case was the quality of the fence design suitable for the risks it was attempting to control

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC), WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#14 Posted : 22 February 2019 12:31:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Condition can also, without defect, refer to the quality.

In this case was the quality of the fence design suitable for the risks it was attempting to control

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC), WatsonD on 22/02/2019(UTC)
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.