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 March 2005 16:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim-F we are working in a public park, dog walkers etc going around, long story-short, dog runs under the dumper, KILLED. the old guys fine about it, and goes to the police who are ok too. The question is do we do a full accident investigation and report to HSE. NO BAD JOKES GUYS! they have all been cracked no we dont winalot
Admin  
#2 Posted : 17 March 2005 16:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Heather Aston Jim No jokes I promise. Should you investigate? Consider whether the same accident could have happened to a small child who was also "off the lead". If the answer is yes then you should definitely investigate. If you don't investigate further than determining that this was a "dog only" type of accident and could not have happened to a child then document that you have done so. I would not bother HSE - they are not interested in dead or injured dogs. Heather
Admin  
#3 Posted : 17 March 2005 23:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Jim. Was the site of the works not enclosed to protect members of the public (and their dogs, children, cats etc) from falling, running, or otherwise being munched under the wheels of the plant on site? I would have thought (without trying to be clever after the fact) that in a public park, protection of the parks users would have been number 1 on the hazard list, doggonit!! Stuart
Admin  
#4 Posted : 18 March 2005 08:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim-F there are lots of contractors on site, it is a country park,there is work going on in several areas, the client did'nt want to close it off so therefore the contractors are mingling with the public
Admin  
#5 Posted : 18 March 2005 09:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Jim, I think you have to do an internal investigation on the grounds that Heather has put forward, i.e. it could have been a toddler. I would particularly review the clients decision not to enclose the works or shut the park for the duration as Stuart has pointed out, though I agree it's always easier to be wise after the event. This has been a 'near miss' as far as the client is concerned (though not for the dog)and lessons need to be learned. Suggestion for title of the report, well "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Country Park" has a certain ring don't you think?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 18 March 2005 09:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Mathews If it were one of my dogs that had been killed I certainly wouldn’t be fine about it. If the park management allows dogs to be exercised off the lead then it is a foreseeable risk that one of them cold be injured by site plant if the area is not appropriately barriered to prevent access. On our sites protection of the public and their property, including pets, is a main concern when works are being carried out. Having said all that, I also take onboard responsibility for my dogs and they are trained to a degree where I know that when they are off the lead they will return to me immediately, on command, should a situation arise where it is necessary to put them back on the lead. Richard
Admin  
#7 Posted : 18 March 2005 09:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lorraine Shuker I would definately do a full investigation ~ if it was my dog that killed and it was because the client or contractors had been negligent in any way I'd be suing your a$$es off for pain and distress.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 18 March 2005 09:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze But then Richard & Lorraine because you're both trained - you know what should be expected and where the park owners have possibly failed in their duty of care. The dog owner in this case seems to have been very forgiving, possibly because he or she cannot see the wider implications. As such I agree this one has potential, which is why it can't just be dismissed and needs to be investigated.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.