Posted By Shane Johnston Our accident report forms have, on the back, a brief investigation by the line manager. The line manager identifies, in his opinion, the cause/underlying cause of the accident. The problem is that some line managers admit liability during their investigations (e.g. "the obvious cause was lack of maintenance"). If a claim is made by an injured employee, do we have to provide their legal representative with our accident investigation, or can we just supply page one which details the normal accident book entry? As an aside I am instigating training for the line managers on accident investigation, which will not only explain how to investigate, but will cover issues such as admission of guilt.

Posted By Jim Walker Shane, Maybe you need to make up your mind about the pupose of the form. Are you **se covering against compensation or are you trying to eliminate further incidents? Me, I like candid opinions; they help you find root causes.

Posted By ken mosley Shane, I assume that this info is being requested as part of the pre-action protocols under CPR. One thing to be wary of is that if the claimant is aware of the existance of the data his solicitor could specifically request it as part of the disclosure process. Failing to produce it or stating it does not exist could lead to a charge of contempt of court, which can result in a custodial sentence for somebody. Regards Ken

Posted By Dave Wilson When doing this kind of stuff it is important that only the facts of the incidents are recorded and what remedial measures are required to prevent a recurrence. Blame is for 1950's employers and the court.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Shane I have replied to you direct. Regards... Stuart

Posted By Shane Johnston I actively want line managers to be involved in accident investigation, however their opinion of the cause/underlying cause may not be completely accurate. We have a system whereby serious accidents are investigated by a safety professional, indpendant line manager and Unions (if they want to be involved), however the line manager concerned still undertaks his own mini-investigation on the back of the accident report form. Here is the problem, many line managers inadvertantly accept liability, even where the injured party may have contributed to the accident. For example the injured party may have been using a piece of equipment that has been maintained/inspected in accordance with the manufactures instructions etc etc, unbeknown to the manager the injured party by-passed the interlock. The line manager states on his mini-investigation that the underlying cause was poor maintenance resulting in interlock failure, as this is what he has been told during his investigation .... not fact but an opinion. If we now conduct a serious accident investigation, in which the facts are detailed and the contributory cause identified, would the fact that we have conflicting reports threaten our defence ? If so would adding "in my personal opinion" to the begining of the line managers report make any difference ?