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
RitishHSE  
#1 Posted : 21 August 2020 06:48:02(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
RitishHSE

Hello all, there is a water feature of length 7m X Width 1m X depth 30cm in the middle of a showroom.

Management is not willing to cover the pond with a metal grill or place barriers around due to financial constraints.

Can anyone propose a safety measure which can be implemented?

Thanks for your help.

Ian Bell2  
#2 Posted : 21 August 2020 07:09:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

Down to risk assessmemt.

Does it need any additional protection - can people fall in and drown, seems unlikely at 30cm depth & 1m wide. Is there someone present when customers are in the showroom?

Can electrical equipment fall in (display lighting??) and electrocute someone

Its quite long but relatively narrow and shallow, Struggling to get excited about it.

Legionella needs to be considered as well as water cleanlinesss (could a child try and drink the water?)

Maybe management are right, nothing more needs to be done.

 

thanks 1 user thanked Ian Bell2 for this useful post.
George_Young on 21/08/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#3 Posted : 21 August 2020 08:41:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

I think it is important to keep a sense of proportion. Consider the fountains in Trafalgar Square, London. Where are the grids there? And that is where an uncontrolled, unsupervised general population are present in significant numbers compared with what will exist in your showroom.

RitishHSE  
#4 Posted : 21 August 2020 11:35:10(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
RitishHSE

Originally Posted by: Ian Bell2 Go to Quoted Post

Down to risk assessmemt.

Does it need any additional protection - can people fall in and drown, seems unlikely at 30cm depth & 1m wide. Is there someone present when customers are in the showroom?

Can electrical equipment fall in (display lighting??) and electrocute someone

Its quite long but relatively narrow and shallow, Struggling to get excited about it.

Legionella needs to be considered as well as water cleanlinesss (could a child try and drink the water?)

Maybe management are right, nothing more needs to be done.

 

It is in fact a car showroom. There has been several incidents involving clients falling into the pond while moving backwards to have a better view of the car. It is certainly a lack a vigilance on the part of the clients but they can still sue the company in case they are injured as per existing legislation in Mauritius.

RitishHSE  
#5 Posted : 21 August 2020 11:41:49(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
RitishHSE

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

I think it is important to keep a sense of proportion. Consider the fountains in Trafalgar Square, London. Where are the grids there? And that is where an uncontrolled, unsupervised general population are present in significant numbers compared with what will exist in your showroom.

I agree with what you mentioned. 

The pond is right in the middle and well illuminated with constant rusting water. You cannot miss it! but we have recurrent incidents involving clients falling into the pond. To add upon, the showroom is the one which is among the less visited. Note that I'm talking about a car showroom.

chris42  
#6 Posted : 21 August 2020 12:06:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: RitishHSE Go to Quoted Post

Can anyone propose a safety measure which can be implemented?

28cm of pebbles

or if you don't want them to even get a wet arse then 32cm of pebbles

Chris

George_Young  
#7 Posted : 21 August 2020 12:31:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
George_Young

Originally Posted by: RitishHSE Go to Quoted Post

It is in fact a car showroom. There has been several incidents involving clients falling into the pond while moving backwards to have a better view of the car. It is certainly a lack a vigilance on the part of the clients but they can still sue the company in case they are injured as per existing legislation in Mauritius.

Reposition the cars? place seating/sales desk around the pond? all low cost/free solutions to prevent people from falling by their carelessness.

(captcha tHin)

Edited by user 21 August 2020 12:32:49(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

peter gotch  
#8 Posted : 21 August 2020 12:38:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Ritish

What legislation in Mauritius covers this?

If it's anything like the two variants of Occupier's Liability Acts in the UK, probably unlikely to be actionable.

That said if people keep falling in, then perhaps you have a problem!

(Not least if soggy bottomed customers are less likely to spend their cash)

Cars are expensive. A pretty stainless steel double rail or where people fall is not. Or perhaps a polycarbonate barrier that doesn't detract from the feature.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
aud on 21/08/2020(UTC)
GTD  
#9 Posted : 21 August 2020 13:47:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
GTD

drain the pond.  job done. 

Acorns  
#10 Posted : 21 August 2020 13:53:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Acorns

Originally Posted by: RitishHSE Go to Quoted Post
It is in fact a car showroom. There has been several incidents involving clients falling into the pond while moving backwards to have a better view of the car. It is certainly a lack a vigilance on the part of the clients but they can still sue the company in case they are injured as per existing legislation in Mauritius.

Hi Ritish, would it be fair to say that you have a trip hazard that happens to contain water.  It would seem that even if we did fill it with pebbles which would negate the drowning risk, it is still a trip hazard.  I'd see your challenge is to remove that trip hazard rather than worry about the water.  If the aim is or was to have the sound and ambiance that water brings whilts looking at our shiny new car, could you create a vertical water feature rather than the trip hazard horizontal one - all the benefits or water and none of the other hazards.  

RVThompson  
#11 Posted : 21 August 2020 13:55:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RVThompson

#9 Fall from height risk though?

Edited by user 21 August 2020 13:58:15(UTC)  | Reason: this answer was supposed to come after post #9

GTD  
#12 Posted : 21 August 2020 14:01:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
GTD

Originally Posted by: RVThompson Go to Quoted Post

#9 Fall from height risk though?

Nope. its a feature. you wont be on top of it. 

Actually theres no requirement to empty it either. its a question in the NCRQ diploma but its relevance to a fountain outside. I actually thought this was someone trying to get the answer. 

Kate  
#13 Posted : 21 August 2020 14:10:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

If it was empty of water, it would be a pit, and thus a fall from height hazard - as fall from height includes falling from ground level into a pit.

thanks 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
RVThompson on 21/08/2020(UTC), George_Young on 21/08/2020(UTC)
RVThompson  
#14 Posted : 21 August 2020 14:12:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RVThompson

My error...should have said hazard, not risk.

Kate  
#15 Posted : 21 August 2020 14:23:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I don't think you did make an error - there is a fall from height risk.

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
RVThompson on 21/08/2020(UTC)
GTD  
#16 Posted : 21 August 2020 17:38:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
GTD

Originally Posted by: Kate Go to Quoted Post

If it was empty of water, it would be a pit, and thus a fall from height hazard - as fall from height includes falling from ground level into a pit.

incorrect. its a feature, this isn't a construction site this is a car show room. plenty evidence of features with the capacity to climb on that aren't coordined off etc.

Whilst this engineering control would be effective to prevent access to the fountain, it is unlikely to be a reasonably practicable measure in this context. The risk here is only to very young children, and in a car showroom environment they would be expected to be under close supervision. As the hazard (open water) is not hidden and the risk (drowning) known to everyone, no additional controls (including additional signage) would be necessary in criminal or civil law.

Edited by user 22 August 2020 05:08:12(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling

Messey  
#17 Posted : 21 August 2020 19:00:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

Appoint volunteer lifeguards 

I will be happy to volunteer for 6 months and will supply my own Baywatch shorts ;)

stevedm  
#18 Posted : 22 August 2020 09:11:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I am sure I read somewhere that if the water is less than 75cm deep it is considered shallow and can be fenced off?...can they be safe by distance?  i.e if they trip and fall at the edge will the actually fall in the water?... 

peter gotch  
#19 Posted : 22 August 2020 10:39:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Steve at #4 Ritish has said that the customers can and DO fall in.

So, for me, it seems that the business case for doing something is a straight matter of deciding whether an unhappy customer is good for sales. Customer is standing back looking at the alternative between buying a Rolls Royce, SUV or latest Mini and falls in. Are they likely to buy any of them?

Todai, puzzled as to why you think that a "pit" could only be present at a construction site. Not that the word "pit" would be relevant if considering e.g. the Work at Height Regulations 2005 if this car showroom was in Great Britain, which according to Ritish it's not.

Security image starts MG - another possibility.

GTD  
#20 Posted : 22 August 2020 16:16:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
GTD

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Steve at #4 Ritish has said that the customers can and DO fall in.

So, for me, it seems that the business case for doing something is a straight matter of deciding whether an unhappy customer is good for sales. Customer is standing back looking at the alternative between buying a Rolls Royce, SUV or latest Mini and falls in. Are they likely to buy any of them?

Todai, puzzled as to why you think that a "pit" could only be present at a construction site. Not that the word "pit" would be relevant if considering e.g. the Work at Height Regulations 2005 if this car showroom was in Great Britain, which according to Ritish it's not.

Security image starts MG - another possibility.

it was my mistake, i assumed the water had a surrounding wall like features i have seen, i was thinking for it to be working at height you would have to climb on the wall and wasn't just a walk in pond. that being said, it is still a water feature. and nobody is working. why don't all kirbs around the UK have engineering controls? thats a fall from height? the term pit is used in construction, if you fell in a pit due to construction works i would understand but in the terms its a feature then it does not make sense. if we applied that principle then all roads are pits :) as would farmers who have land that faces onto cliffs ... endless 'WAH'  Theres a horse in Glasgow that people climb on, why isn't that cordinoned of? because its a feature. Just like the pond. 

peter gotch  
#21 Posted : 22 August 2020 17:44:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Todai

I don't think there are many arguing on safety grounds for protection.

As to the farmer working near a cliff edge, the Work at Height Regs will apply to them if in GB, and in very broad terms would tell them to take some precautions when near the edge.

But if it is the cliff top path which is a right of way along the edge of their field then the Occupiers Liability Act would apply. So, as you have pointed out, in general the case law dating back to the first decade of the 20th Century says that it's a natural feature, the risks are obvious and no duty to protect the visitor.

The case law then got expanded to include artificial features that are similar to natural features following the fatality of a person who drowned in a reservoir. Then the case law was clarified in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council which says in effect that if there is something that makes the feature exceptionally dangerous, and perhaps not obviously so, then some duty of care might apply.

But back to the "pit", there are lots of pits in places other than construction, e.g. casting pits in a foundry or a slurry pit on a farm. Whether or not it is a "pit" is somewhat immaterial. The Work at Height Regs (if they applied, or if similar legislation is in place in Mauritius) would look at the potential for falling from one level to one below. Whether or not there is a low barrier in between is largely irrelevant.

But when the students (or others) climb that statue in Glasgow and replace the cone (again), they are not at work, so the WAH Regs don't come into play. Back to Occupier's Liability. The risks are obvious and whoever climbs the statue takes the risk. Postcards sales would diminish if there wasn't a cone photo opportunity.

When we get to the roadside kerb, there is obviously a risk and one that is commonly dealt with where e.g. there is expectation of the need for wheelchair access. Plenty of case law (and litigation that doesn't make it to case law) on what standards are acceptable or not. So, as example highways authorities often have an "intervention level" to set a threshold as to when to deal with uneven footpath surfaces, that enable risk-based decision making (partly dependent on the volume of nature of those using the path).

GTD  
#22 Posted : 22 August 2020 17:54:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
GTD

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Todai

I don't think there are many arguing on safety grounds for protection.

As to the farmer working near a cliff edge, the Work at Height Regs will apply to them if in GB, and in very broad terms would tell them to take some precautions when near the edge.

But if it is the cliff top path which is a right of way along the edge of their field then the Occupiers Liability Act would apply. So, as you have pointed out, in general the case law dating back to the first decade of the 20th Century says that it's a natural feature, the risks are obvious and no duty to protect the visitor.

The case law then got expanded to include artificial features that are similar to natural features following the fatality of a person who drowned in a reservoir. Then the case law was clarified in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council which says in effect that if there is something that makes the feature exceptionally dangerous, and perhaps not obviously so, then some duty of care might apply.

But back to the "pit", there are lots of pits in places other than construction, e.g. casting pits in a foundry or a slurry pit on a farm. Whether or not it is a "pit" is somewhat immaterial. The Work at Height Regs (if they applied, or if similar legislation is in place in Mauritius) would look at the potential for falling from one level to one below. Whether or not there is a low barrier in between is largely irrelevant.

But when the students (or others) climb that statue in Glasgow and replace the cone (again), they are not at work, so the WAH Regs don't come into play. Back to Occupier's Liability. The risks are obvious and whoever climbs the statue takes the risk. Postcards sales would diminish if there wasn't a cone photo opportunity.

When we get to the roadside kerb, there is obviously a risk and one that is commonly dealt with where e.g. there is expectation of the need for wheelchair access. Plenty of case law (and litigation that doesn't make it to case law) on what standards are acceptable or not. So, as example highways authorities often have an "intervention level" to set a threshold as to when to deal with uneven footpath surfaces, that enable risk-based decision making (partly dependent on the volume of nature of those using the path).

i'm not saying farmer working near a cliff edge, i'm meaning the farmer being the land owner. your statement on features  " perhaps not obviously so, then some duty of care might apply." well a pond is an obvious risk which was my original point.  Casting pits in a foundry - work environmnet, slurry pit - work environment. as i said, feature of a show room is different. as for kirbs, you've not really give me antyhing to show how a road (with kirb either side) is not a pit? on the principles your debating here... i have a step into my home... i could fall, working at height regs apply so should the developer be responsible?  my point still stands, no requirement for any extra risk mitigiations unless you choose to do so on the principle that people falling in a pond isn't good... equally... they'll probably laugh and tell their mates. :) 

Gerry Knowles  
#23 Posted : 26 August 2020 14:35:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Gerry Knowles

I can't get excited about this.  I once visited a hotel in Gatwick where they had a large open water feature shaped like a pond in the middle of the floor with statues of geese taking off and people just either walked past it or stood and had a look, I sat in the bar and had a beer and watched. No one fell in.  If you go to Las Vegas one of the hotels has a complete canal system running through the lobby and people walk next to it or stand and look at it, I sat in the bar and had a beer and watched. No one fell in.  Perhaps people who are buying cars need to take more account of their surroundings and take more care. 

My point is that life poses risks everyday and we can't control them all and we need to make people take responsibility for themselves and look out for themselves.  We need to stop trying to manage every risk on earth. Just needed to get that off my chest!!!!!

Edited by user 26 August 2020 14:53:56(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling

thanks 1 user thanked Gerry Knowles for this useful post.
biker1 on 26/08/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#24 Posted : 26 August 2020 19:58:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Pits can fill with water whereas by its design a road edged with kerbs also has drains to remove rain/melt water

Yes there are some badly designed and poorly maintained examples which contradict the above, but in general

Roundtuit  
#25 Posted : 26 August 2020 19:58:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Pits can fill with water whereas by its design a road edged with kerbs also has drains to remove rain/melt water

Yes there are some badly designed and poorly maintained examples which contradict the above, but in general

chris42  
#26 Posted : 27 August 2020 08:40:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

If we are now saying this feature is actually only 30 cm high as well deep ( I for some reason thought it was higher and just 30 cm of water so people were just falling back and sitting in it. I’m not sure about it being a pit or not if the bottom of water is the same level as the floor. I know if you are stood next to a hole then you can be considered working at height, but if the bottom of the water is same height as floor not sure. However, I don’t think the work at height regs are applicable as the customers are not at work. Seems a moot point anyway.

However, if this is only 30 cm from the floor and 1m wide then I have to wonder when people fall backwards, are they landing on the other edge of the feature as it is only 1m wide? on their back, neck or head etc. That could be quite nasty! I would assume if someone was to be significantly hurt by hitting the other edge and it came out this was a known hazard it would not go well in court.

Chris

RitishHSE  
#27 Posted : 18 September 2020 11:43:43(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
RitishHSE

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

If we are now saying this feature is actually only 30 cm high as well deep ( I for some reason thought it was higher and just 30 cm of water so people were just falling back and sitting in it. I’m not sure about it being a pit or not if the bottom of water is the same level as the floor. I know if you are stood next to a hole then you can be considered working at height, but if the bottom of the water is same height as floor not sure. However, I don’t think the work at height regs are applicable as the customers are not at work. Seems a moot point anyway.

However, if this is only 30 cm from the floor and 1m wide then I have to wonder when people fall backwards, are they landing on the other edge of the feature as it is only 1m wide? on their back, neck or head etc. That could be quite nasty! I would assume if someone was to be significantly hurt by hitting the other edge and it came out this was a known hazard it would not go well in court.

Chris

You rightly mentioned the fact that people fall backwards in the water feature. This incident has happened several times.

Regarding the location of the injury, for an adult it will be around the back, but, for a teen or a children it could be somewhere around the neck or head which could lead to major injuries or even fatal.

I do personally think that the layout of the showroom is such that it increase the risks. However, not much can be done to redesign the showroom.

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.