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
A Kurdziel  
#1 Posted : 11 September 2019 14:56:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49662134

An example of ‘elf and safety’ gone mad perhaps

Essentially the employee's family are wanting to claim against the company's insurance policy for the employees death as it was 'on business'

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 11 September 2019 15:04:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

"Duty of care on mission" - lets hope such a definition does not end up in RIDDOR

Steve e ashton  
#3 Posted : 11 September 2019 20:37:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Not so much h&s gone mad as h&s gone maid! Seriously though, the insurance arrangements in France are very different to those in UK, and this case has little (other than prurient interest) relevance here. I recall (though it may be apocryphal, this not from my personal archive..) a claim from a travelling businessman in a hotel who was injured by a falling wall clock above the bedhead. The claim (against his employer) was dismissed on the basis that witnesses reported he (and an "unknown woman") had been engaged some vigorous physical activity which was repeatedly banging the headboard against the wall under the clock. Hie employers successfully argued he was "on a frolic of his own".
stevedm  
#4 Posted : 12 September 2019 07:00:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

So far as is reasonably practicable does not fully align to the intent of the framework directive and the application of the directive in some member states and even regions in Germany and France can mean that you face a scenario where you have strict liability for ANY event that could prejudice the safety of employees... so again, here we are throwing stones again...yes it is difficult to control and there are many examples of 'world gone mad' you just have to look at any Black and Decker tool manual to see the lengthy instructions and disclaimers as a result of someone trying to scratch his nose with a power drill, to see that litigation can come in many forms and human behaviour means we will never get away from that as we are all blameless aren't we?  I didn't do it!...

A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 12 September 2019 13:33:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Let’s face it ‘prurient interest’  make’s a change from the next is it a RIDDOR question!

stevedm  
#6 Posted : 12 September 2019 14:17:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

agreed :)

achrn  
#7 Posted : 13 September 2019 12:47:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Steve e ashton Go to Quoted Post
I recall (though it may be apocryphal, this not from my personal archive..) a claim from a travelling businessman in a hotel who was injured by a falling wall clock above the bedhead. The claim (against his employer) was dismissed on the basis that witnesses reported he (and an "unknown woman") had been engaged some vigorous physical activity which was repeatedly banging the headboard against the wall under the clock. Hie employers successfully argued he was "on a frolic of his own".

That sounds possibly like a misremembering of something to me.  There was a similarish case, but it was a woman, and she was a federal employee, and it was a light fitting, which was pulled from the wall (it wasn't shaken loose by the rhythmic activity), in Australia.  Although a court did award compensation, it was appealed and when it eventually worked its way through the system to the supreme court it was rejected.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10413743/Australian-woman-loses-bid-for-compensation-for-sex-injury-while-on-work-trip.html

Back to the French case, I think this is just about insurance.  I don't think the court has claimed that the activity should have been controlled or risk-assessed by the employer, or that the employer was at fault, only that the insurance company has to pay up.

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.