Posted By R Joe
The following may be of interest - the grounds for upholding the Appeal of the school proprietor previously convicted when a 3 year old died after falling down steps.

http://www.lawreports.co...D/2008/CACrim/may0.3.htm

Gerard Forlin was involved in the successful Appeal and is heralding this as a landmark case.

Regards RJ

Posted By Syrup
Maybe the honourable Lordships would also take the same view with the scenario in the 'Cake morning' thread.

I'm with ClareL....

Posted By ClaireL
When I was at Primary school we had steps in the plaground and I don't think we had more than one teacher on duty.

My children are now grown up but I wouldn't have expected them to be wrapped in cotton wool at school. They need to play and explore and learn through bumps and grazes what is a good idea and what is not. It is a very rare tragedy when a child dies through such play but no reason to ban it.

If one of my children had got hurt or died through such an incident I would have been devastated but I wouldn't have blamed the school. Accidents happen.

Posted By R Joe
Putting schools and this individual case aside - it's been debated a lot on this forum already, the wider issue appears to be:-

" There was no obligation to guard against those risks which were merely fanciful. How was the line to be drawn? There was no objective standard which applied to every case but one way or the other there would be important indicia or factors none of which might be determinative but many might be of importance, e g evidence of any previous accident in similar daily circumstances."

What does this potentially mean for risk assessment and HSE cases with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? Hence Gerard Forlin's claim about it being a 'landmark case'.

RJ

Posted By Andy Petrie
R Joe,

as a safety professional, when I do a risk assessment I assess what I consider to be significant risks based on my knowledge and experience. I would never consider steps provided they were in good condition as I don't consider them to be significant.

I guess the only true judge of this would be a court case where 20:20 clarity applies to the incident in question. We have to be constantly prepared to stand up in a witness box and explain ourselves should an accident occur. In my opinion, this ruling certainly helps swing things in our favour.

Posted By R Joe

It will be interesting to see if HSE appeal. Will we then have 'fanciful risk' Vs 'sensible H&S'?

Posted By Andrew W
Having always worked in high hazard industries and occasionally sniggered to myself at some of the postings on this forum, (with regard to the totally insignificant risks which individuals tell posters to consider) this case comes as a breath of fresh air and a victory for common sense and sensible safety.

I wonder how long it will be before an appeal is lodged?

Andy

Posted By Andy Petrie
the cake one's had about 30 post in the last 2 hours in all fairness

Posted By Tabs
This is indeed very interesting, not least for describing the Museum of London case as fanciful (legionella *possibility* I think).

I think the HSE will be very keen for this to be argued again, as there is a substantial set of circumstances where they rely on that MoL ruling.

The danger though, is that every set of stairs or steps in museums, schools, department stores, toy shops, underground stations, etc. ad infinitum might have become the subject of supervision requirements.

I think great outcome for this case though. Of course our sympathies are with the family.

Posted By bill reilly
Tabs
HSE tried to appeal and failed

The Health & Safety Executive has failed in its attempt to overturn a Court of Appeal judgement which cleared a headmaster of responsibility for the death of a pupil, according to law firm DWF.

In July 2007 Mr Porter was convicted at Mold Crown Court of failing to take adequate measures to protect the children from the steps. He was fined £12,500 and ordered to pay £7,500 costs.

The conviction was overturned in May this year by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that there was nothing within the steps themselves that created a risk of injury and that ‘any alleged risk should be real and not just theoretical or fanciful’.

The HSE applied for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, however this was refused by the Court of Appeal.

Steffan Groch, health, safety and regulatory partner at DWF, said: “From the very beginning we have argued that Mr Porter was innocent based on points of law. Our arguments were upheld by the Court of Appeal and now by this latest decision in which HSE was refused leave to challenge the judgement because it is based on sound principles.

“The decision is good news, not only for Mr Porter but for schools and for employers for which any other decision may have had adverse implications.”