Posted By gburgess Some advice required please. We have an issue at present which I am getting different opinions on so would like to know what some of you think about it. We are the owners of a number of harbours on which we provide power stations that boat owners (both private and commercial) can use to power equipment on the boat while they are in dock. The boat owners will purchase electricity cards from us and then plug power cables into the PS and use their credits on the electricity cards to power equipment on the boat. Quite often equipment will be left attached to the PS all through the night. The PS are positioned approx 2 meters from the quay side which means that cables trail across the floor between the PS and the boat. This is an area both boat owners and members of the public are freee to walk along. We had an incident recently where a member of the public tripped over a cable and injured there face (it was just after eleven a clock at night!!). Does the responsibility to ensure that cables do not present a tripping hazard rest with us who provide the power station or the boat owner who uses it and who's cable it is? I have had differing opinions on this question as to where the responsibility lies. Also can you think of any practical solutions to removing the tripping hazard? Hope I have explained that well enough. Thanks Greg

Posted By Jerry Lucey Hi Greg, Have you looked at some sort of cable trays over the walkway where the power/ plug in points are on the marina side of the walkway? This might eliminate the hazard you have mentioned. You would need to ensure that new risks are not being created though e.g. water damage to the connection point and the risk of electrocution. Were the Power Supply units set back from the marina to protect against water damage? On the liability side as Frank states, you as owner and controller are responsible for general areas and access routes.

Posted By Frank Hallett Sorry Adrian, but I have to disagree with much of your comment. The responsibility lies firmly with the controller, not the user who cannot change the position of the outlets. I do agree however that the users would have secondary responsibility for the condition of their leads and the aggravating of the existing range of hazards presented by the positioning of the outlets by the controller bu leaving insufficient slack cable; but this could be very easily removed by the sensible positioning of the outlets or the provision of cable-runs that remove the trip hazard potential. Frank Hallett

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear All, If the people do not connect their boats to the electrical power supply there is no risk whatsoever. Therefore it is not the supply of the power outlets, but the use of them that produces the risk. It is therefore encumbant on the user to take reasonable precautions to protect other users. In respect of the cables, it is possible to protect them by covering the cables with a cable protector. I do agree that it may be better to site the boxes, but these may have to be sited a set distance from the water. Regards Adrian

Posted By Jim Walker Adrian, Sorry that can' be right. The person controlling the site is responsible. They let boat owners & public onto their premises and have a duty of care to all. I'm with Frank on this one

Posted By gburgess Thanks for all the responses. The responses have created the same debate as I have had with various people, some feeling it is our responsibility and some saying it rests with the boat owners who have control over where they position the cable and how they choose to protect it etc. 11 o'clock on a Friday night might suggest to some that the person had been to the pub so could have been a little worse for where. I should be grateful it's not a drowning I was having to investigate I suppose. Public can either walk on the quay side of the road or down the pavement next to the shops and pubs. Any practical solutions would also be appreciated as the cost of moving over 100 power stations would be pretty significant. Thanks again to everybody. Greg

Posted By Robert K Lewis Like Frank I am afraid you have a significant responsibility here. You have created a 2 metre wide route where you know that people will lay cables across thus obstructing the walkway. The time of the accident for me is irrelevant, it could have been a child on a bike at midday. You are also encouraging the use of the PS by virtue of supplying the cards for use. It may even be that you have determined the unit price to be charged for the power and thus this is part of the undertaking in which your council is engaged. The position is exacerbated by the fact that no provision is available for the owners to lay cables safely across the route. Your best option is going to be laying in some form of cable trench with cover to each point, probably cheaper than moving the point locations. The other is not likely to work and requires fencing off the whole section to the general public. I think the cable covers/ramps as often seen are not really going to be much more than window dressing and could still cause falls and trips unless of a very shallow angle. Best of luck in resolving this Bob

Posted By Frank Hallett Mark - for shame! Forgot - No; omitted - Yes. Can't hog all the stuff. Thanks for the compliment as well. Frank Hallett

Posted By Adrian Watson PS Mark, you cannot use the HSWA to sue. Regards Adrian

Posted By Dave Wilson Have to agree with Adrian on this point!

Posted By Stupendous Man Marina owner

Posted By Heather Collins Let's try an analogy. Retail outlet provides a car park for use by customers. Although it is open during the hours of darkness, it is not well-lit. A member of the public parks a car in the carpark in an unlit spot. A second member of the public walks into the car in the dark and is injured. If the car had not been there the accident would not have happened. Who is to blame, the person who parked the car or the owner of the retail outlet....

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear all, It's not whether the person uses it or not, but whether they take reasonable care when they do use it. There is no suggestion here that the power supply is unsafe or that is defective, so why would the marina owner be automatically liable for providing a power supply. As stated the trailing cable, not a defective supply, that caused the person to trip. "But for" the trailing cable there would be no trip hazard; therefore, the boat owner is the person most likely to be found liable, as it was not a defect in the premises that caused the injury. Just for clarity, I assume that the boat owner makes the connection to the power supply using their own cables. Regards Adrian Watson PS. Heather, your analogy is poor in that it is the poor lighting that is the cause of injury. So for the "but for test", but for the poor lighting there would be no accident; therefore, the occupier/owner would be held to be liable.

Posted By Jasonjg Actually I was assuming the cable went to the boat rather than from the boat but now that you mention it, it does seem as though it is from boat.

Posted By Anthony Slinger Adrian, Forget law for a moment. The marina has provided a service, that if used in the manor intended, causes a significant and foreseeable hazard and risk of injury. With this knowledge, would you suggest the marina owners tell the boat owners who purchase electricity cards that in using the service THEY will be causing a potential trip hazard and THEY should take steps to reasonably prevent such a hazard occurring, by either not connecting the cable or using sky hooks and we will be checking. On checking you find THEY have not plugged in nor used sky hooks (chandlery out of stock). How can this service be used safely? By not using it? That’s going to look good in Clarkson’s column. I am not being facetious here just realistic.

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH A, Good agument, but why can't reg 3.1 apply as well? Also can thake this one into consideration as well:- Regina -v- Port of Ramsgate although design issue and death to persons Port of Ramsgate still found guilty. Regards

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH Jason, before you know it you might be putting the clocks back a few years ago when the law part of the NEBOSH Diploma required you to memorise a number of cases, somebody once said to me you need to remember 100 cases, just keep it simple, look to landlord, but in this case HM Dockyard, theirs is the duty, the captain has a duty as well, so how about the harbour master, where does this person come into the equasion, go to reginavport of ramsgate, answer can be found there. The person who has started this thread I think might be in another country. Sorry if it reads or sounds like I am trying to teach you to suck eggs, I promise I'm not. Regards

Posted By Jasonjg Sorry for mispelled name.

Posted By Stupendous Man Heather, Nice analogy - perhaps the fault would lie with the 'muppet' who walked in to the car! Relax all - it's a Friday comment!

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Jason, No problems. In FAIRCHILD v GLENHAVEN [2001] EWCA Civ 1881 it was reported that: "In Babcock, Fairchild and Dyson the court held that no liability attaches to an occupier of premises whether at common law prior to 1957 or under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 from the mere fact that the workmen in these cases were exposed to asbestos dust in premises of which they were the occupiers. The language of section 2(2) of the 1957 Act, which referred to “care … to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there” relates to the static condition of the premises. Any liability in respect of a danger to which the workmen may be exposed as a consequence of activities performed on the premises falls to be determined by the common law (or by a different statute, such as section 63(1) of the Factories Act 1961). In these three cases, where the occupiers engaged competent independent contractors to carry out work on their premises, and where the occupiers did not know of the danger to which the workmen were exposed (even though they ought to have known it, at any rate from 1958 onwards), they were not liable for negligence at common law simply in their capacity as occupiers (see paras 149-155 of http://www.bailii.org/cg...+Co+Ltd+1966+&method=all for the judgement)." In the example we are dealing with it is not the state of the premises that gave rise to the injury but the activities that were going on. Who was carrying out the connection? The boat owner; however, the question arises was the boat owner at work? If he was not, Health and Safety law does not apply to him. However, in connecting to the electricity supply; other acts and regulations may apply, but not H&S law! As a consequence, the law that applies is the laws of contract and negligence. I will stick to negligence, as I don't have a copy of the contract documents. So, who owes duties to who? The marina (harbour/Quay) operator owes a duty of care to the boat owner and other parties; conversely, the boat owner owes a duty of care to the operator and other users of the marina. Now who's acts and omissions fell below the standards of the reasonable man in similar circumstances? The boat owner, in that he failed to ensure that his cable was not a trip hazard! Say for example; that the cable lay across the quay, but was not connected to the electricity supply; Would the trip hazard exist? Yes! However, if the cable was not there, did the electricity supply give rise to the trip hazard? No! Therefore, it was the cable and not the electricity supply power outlet that gave rise to the person tripping. So the next question whose cable was it? Was it the boat owners or the marina owners? I made the assumption that it was the boat owner who made the connection from the information provided. Regards Adrian Watson.