Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By antony cooper
hello, if a principle contractor instructed a subcontractor to work on a roof, and the subcontractor carelessly fell through a roof light, which both the subcontractor and principle contractor knew to be in poor condition.
What is the situation under civil and criminal law e.g. what roughly is the maximum fine available?
Also do the new cdm regs being introduced increase the burden on the principle contractor?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By db
In my days with HSE the biggest single type of accident I investigated were falls from a roof/through fragile material on a roof.
Usually (99.9% of cases) I prosecuted the Principal Contractor and the sub-contractor but this depended on what the PC did or didn't do. After all they are, always have been and - under the new CDM regs still will be, ultimately responsible. However, I can see situations where the PC may not be prosecuted - someone may go on to a roof where they had no business going so no controls are put in place. Usually, though the falls occur when someone goes on a roof for a reason or there is access which has not been restricted.
Others can also be in the firing line - e.g. the client, the planning supervisor etc., but these are rarer. Clients usually were prosecuted in non CDM (CDM 94 that is so non-notifiable short-ish jobs) where they got the cheapest price, didnt bother to check the competence of the company and didnt bother to check what the contractor was going to do - also putting their employees and mop at risk. I had one case where the PS could have been in the dock but it was felt that it would detract from the seriousness of the failings of the contractors. Cant remember the details but the duty is down to the contractors mainly.
CDM 2007 puts no greater duty on the PC than the current regs but more on the client and the co-ordinator.
Max fine in a magistrates court is £20,000 for a HSW charge, £5000 for a reg charge and unlimited in the Crown Court.
Not sure about civil claims - the burden of proof is of course less but they usually follow the criminal regs. Someone else may be able to shed light on that bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
It wont be a matter of fine under civil law and any claim will be based upon the extent of loss. You say that the sub-contractor is careless with regard to this incident. The nature of this could be a significant issue. Perhaps there is a sufficient control measure to be used to prevent the fall which is ignored by the sub-contractor. Perhaps the nature and time of the work is such that the PC doesn't have reasonable opportunity to become aware of this in order to stop the activity. All relevant facts would need to be considered in the process of apportioning blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
As db sort of said, if access to a roof was possible and the fragile rooflight was left uncovered or if there were no nets etc. to prevent falls then the PC will carry the can. The sub-con may or may not be liable but it depends on the amount of control it had over the roofwork.
This is just simple stuff. Don't work on a roof without porecautions for falling from the edge or through fragile roof lights.
The wah regs say this explicitly, as did the costruction (HSW) Regs before that and the ones before that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
Oh, yeah and I like the "carelessly fell through the roof" bit as well.
Nice touch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Hi Antony.
Puzzled why both db and ddraice seem to think the duty on the PC is greater than that on the subcontractor [as employer or self-employed]particularly without any details as to what the PC had or had not done e.g. to review sub-contractor's proposed safe system of work.
See Construction (HSW) Regs 1996 Reg 4(2)- who controls the way in which the subcontractor does the roofwork and to what extent - i.e. is e.g. enforcing safe system of work within PC's control?
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
On such little information we could argue all day as to who has more responsiblity. Ultimatley the magistrate/judge decides based on the facts resented.
Of course, the subby has duties but the work is under the control of the PC. If the subby controlled the roofwork or was responsible for putting in the control measures then they may be seen to have more responsibility.
If, as in the case mentioned above, the subby was asked to work somewhere where they didnt have control then there is still a duty but the emphasis would be more on the PC. This is not always the case but from my experience with the courts this is what usually happens - but these are all moot points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
Antony,
It is usually possible to come up with a ball park figure for fines by looking for similar circumstance... but one has to have details "agreed" before you start looking. As for civil claims it is not possible to provide a ball park figure. This is because it depends upon the extent of injuries and the person involved. So;
Young single man who dies as result of injuries - low compensation
Old, near retirement man who dies - low compensation
Old, near retirement man who survives but it rendered paraplegic - medium/high because of care costs - but what is life expectancy?
Young, married man with dependent children - very high. There is the issue of dependent children and loss of earnings plus the care costs - and life expectancy will be good due to modern medical care.
Must always remember that civil compensation is intended to return injured party to state they were before accident. It all depends upon the outcome rather than the incident. Hope this helps
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.