Posted By Stuart Nagle
An interesting scenario that reminds of previous cases:
John Summers & Sons - V - Frost (1955):
whilst operating a power driven grinding machine Mr Frost's thumb slipped through a small gap between the guard and the grinding wheel. The House of Lords ruled this to a breach of statutory duty, as the duty under section 14 of the Factories Act 1961, to fence a dangerous part of machinery securely, was an absolute one.
According to this descision, even if it is impossible to use a machine when it is securely fenced, then so beit. It is up to parliament to make regulations to modify this duty in special cases - in this case, the introduction of the Abrasive Wheel Regulations 1970.
The requirements of section 12 of the Safety (General Provisions) part of the Factories Act was for the moving parts of any prime mover to be securly fenced (subject to certain exceptions where the parts could be rendered safe by construction or position). and it was left to case law to determine the term 'securely fenced'.
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (as amended) now apply in place of the Factories Act. However, the question is what effect would previous case law have on a decision and what is securely fenced?
some precidents are binding and have to be followed, some are less stringent and only need consideration. The decision made in the case above was a binding decision, however other case law decisions have amplified specific points within the framework of the binding decision, for example is the purpose of a fence to contain parts of machine or prevent them from flying out, or prevent a person coming into contact with moving parts?
In Nichols - V- Austin it was stressed that it was intended to keep people out, not keep parts in. So what constitutes a secure fence, for example when a tool shatters and parts come out injuring a person?
This will determine the nature of the fence and its employment and positioning in relation to persons who may be effected.
In your own case I would assume the grinding face of the belt is presently upwards, and so working on the belt surface is the correct manner in which the equipment is to be used.
Access therefore to the side of the belt is not deemed as necessary nor is it deemed safe and could inherently cause damage to the belt, rendering it unsafe. Due regard needs to be given to this as although access is prevented to the moving parts at the side of the belt, you state that entrapment could occur. The motive therefore here would seem to be preventing an accident (and entrapment) and preventing access to moving parts where access should not be available.
If the atsk requires access to a particular point on the belt, why is this and what is the safest method of achieving it, without endangering a person carrying out the task.
It may well be that the guard provided should in fact not allow access to the side of the belt at all, e.i. be even closer than at present, to prevent such entrapment, so far as is reasonably practicable, or of a different design, configuration or material so as to prevent an accident and any entrapment.
Food for thought.