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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 17 July 2003 09:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch
Hi employed H&S guys and guyesses,

How many of you do the odd bit of consultancy at the weekend, paid or not.

Recent case of employee of construction consultancy doing a homer and giving negligent advice.

Claim against the consultancy was upheld on appeal despite their argument that they [and thence their Professional Indemnity Insurers] had zero commercial or other interest.

In our internal video on Risk management in Design and Build our broker's qualified lawyer and engineer comments that PII is "to protect the unfortunate, not the careless", recognising that whilst you may be advising on a matter which you know about, it does not prevent you making the odd mistake.

Doesn't mean you need personal insurance, but does mean that you may be uninsured for your outside work, or that your employer might be at risk if the case gets to those with an understanding of recent appeal decisions.

Not conducive to an increase in your annual bonus or your promotion prospects?

Peter
Admin  
#2 Posted : 17 July 2003 22:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Peter,

I am absolutely shocked at this example of 'Justice desipio'. Did the judge seriously consider the implication of this when he came to this decision?

With in the last few weeks I have helped out at my son’s school fate, helped with the organisation of our village fate including acting as a tug of war referee, organised outings etc. Does this now mean that what I do in my own time seriously becomes my employers business?

Some time back on this forum, I also raised the issue of the case Merrett vBabb.

You are correct Peter, in that we are almost coming stage when all safety practitioners will need their own private professional indemnity insurance (with an expensive run off period when you retire). When I have made enquiries about this in the past, I could not even get a quote.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 18 July 2003 12:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson
Hello Peter me old fruit! Don't know the case if you could email or let me know where I cann read.

Could it be as that this chap was already a 'consultant' that it could be construed that he was getting a paid benefit (Homer in your words) and did he do this with the knowledge of his employer?, therefore could be seen to be 'at work' and under the direction of his employer?

I seriously do not belive that non - formal advice given to a friend or charity etc where no cash has changed hands could actully put my employer 'at risk' therfore no 'contract'.

What you do in your own time without your employers knowledge outside of your contracted working hours has nothing to do with your employer, as long as you are not utilising his equipment / premises / or intellectual property rights.

Remember if you are employed as a HS&E persona and produce documentation / policies etc for them as part of your job it belongs to the employer and not to you!



Admin  
#4 Posted : 18 July 2003 14:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gavin Gibson
Just a thought, but it is not only the employer who is at risk. That offhand comment or free guidance on a school funday could make you, as a safety professional, liable if something then goes wrong. This irrespective of PII and whether you are a consultant or not. Be carefull!
Admin  
#5 Posted : 18 July 2003 15:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I'm confused over what is being said here.

Was it the 'homer' that was wrong or the giving of the advice (good or otherwise)?

How does this relate to e.g. IOSH Discussion forums, will we all have to sign a disclaimer or take out an insurance policy?

Please could somone forward me details of the case.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 18 July 2003 15:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson
J,

You make a good point here will another employer who takes the advice offered on this Discussion Forum be able to sue a contributor if that advice then goes qrong, and then will that persons employer be liable as well.

So everyone offering advice to anybody on any subject can be held liable - am I losing the plot here cant think of anything so bizarre!!
Admin  
#7 Posted : 18 July 2003 15:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
I think I must be missing the message here somehow or we don't have enough information. My thoughts in a hypothetical situation would be:

Scenario 1: A consultancy provides H&S advice, guidance and so on. It also provides the same sort of advice free of charge to, let's say voluntary bodies. Surely the consultancy is still liable for the accuracy of that advice whether paid for or not. A recent example was some risk assessments for a Parish Council - I would expect the consultancy to be liable for those just as they are for paying clients.

Scenario 2: An employee of this consultancy gives advice free of charge (your homer scenario as far as I can understand it???) to say, a school, a charity or whatever with consultancy consent - so the consultancy is still liable.

Scenario 3: An employee gives the same sort of advice completely on his own without consultancy consent - then that is the employee's affair and nothing to do with the consultancy and the employee will be liable.

I'm guessing a bit here but Peter's scenario sounds like number 1 or 2 to me. If it is then I can't see what the argument is.

If it is number 3 then Peter's advice with reference to insurance sounds like good sense!

Or as they say in Yorkshire

'tha better off knowin nowt abaht nothin'

then you can't get into trouble!

Geoff
Admin  
#8 Posted : 18 July 2003 16:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Eric Burt
If the organisation comes under HASAWA as a workplace, there is also the criminal side to consider in respect of section 36 of HASAWA.

Just had a quick look at good old Redgraves and there is some case law on page 96. i.e. Lindley v George W Horner 1950, Lamb v Sunderland and District Creamery Ltd and a couple of others. Haven't checked out the cases myself, but you may wish to if you need something more concrete to go on.

Eric
Admin  
#9 Posted : 21 July 2003 09:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch
Geoff

Your scenario no 3.

Can't rememember case title but widely reported in the construction press some time ago and causing real concern amongst construction consultants!

Peter
Admin  
#10 Posted : 21 July 2003 18:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
Well in that case Peter I just don't understand the logic.

Does anybody have the name or information on how we can get further details.

Geoff
Admin  
#11 Posted : 21 July 2003 20:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp
'The law is an ass' (Bumble, 1850), nothing has changed much! It seems absurd that your employer could be liable if as a consultant you gave advice in your own time. Surely it is better to take advice from someone who is 'competent' rather than someone who is not, or no advice.

Take a scenario where advice was given free of charge, would a disclaimer stating that that 'no liability is accepted' prevent a claim? Try taking a surveyor to court for negligent advice, even though you have paid for it, no chance!
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.