The employer, plus theres nothing to say that the site owner should not be involved in the process SBH

Its pretty much the standard EL claim disclosure. The IP is claiming against us for his injuries and his solicitors are asking us for risk assessments, accident form etc. We've already replied stating that the drivers employers should be providing the risk assessment as he was one of their employees. Whilst we have a duty to ensure our premises are safe, what the driver does when he gets here is out of our hands (provided that it isnt our site or operation that puts him at risk). My argument is that Im not even convinced he should be claiming against us as it was not our operation that put him at risk but that he should be claiming against his own employers who would argue contrib. negligence.

Sounds to my cynical ears that the driver is simply looking to make a quick buck in line with the claims culture that is prevalent in our country these days. I imagine he wants to keep his job so isn't wanting to claim against them so has decided that by claiming against you he might get some cash but not ruffle the feathers of his employee. Cynical, moi?

Cynical? Not if its accurate which given the information I have, it is.

Hi Jason. I would expect the Employer of the driver to have a detailed risk assessment for the drivers activities. I would also expect there to be a risk assessment to be carried out by the site owner relating to the driver / site interface with any significant issues recorded i.e. unloading bays, unloading platforms, pedestrian interface, surfaces, systems of work etc. I hope this helps.

Falls from his cab, was this getting in or out off, if getting in had his route taken him through any substances that could have reduced the friction required to allow stabilty of his foot wear on the cab steps, (oil, mud, grease), pedestrian routes in place, as he is a visitor what are you required to offer. as for who risk assesses he is your contractor, what controls do you have in place for contractors.

It is his employers job to provide him and you if reqested with an R/A as said earlier. It never ceases to amaze me that a questions asked and then some add there own slant on the request i.e. did he go through mud, oil etc. This is happened with us but we had an R/A for our employees in case they needed to get onto the vehicle. We sent our legal sent it back to the solicitors and we didn't hear again.

A similar situation happened to me a few years ago whereby a peripatetic employee fell off the back of a lorry due to a dodgy ladder in our loading bay, broke his leg, open fracture, not a pretty sight and of course we needed an ambulance for him. I was in the process of completing a RIDDOR but thought best just check this out with the EHO. He advised not to complete the form as it was the duty of his employer but we should notify the HSE giving the details of the company as the accident took place on our premises. In the end the company this person worked for was fined for not informing the HSE via RIDDOR/not completing risk assessments, not providing training, and poorly maintaining work equipment.

In a previous life I had a generic risk assessment for all deliveries, this identified where the vehicles would park up. What control measures were in place - including what information would be given to the drivers, what routes they would take on and off site, what route they would take as a pedestrian to get into goods in etc. I had to produce this for a supplier who thought we were liable for his driver dropping his keys and standing up striking his head on the corner of the drivers door.

With regards to a risk assessment for "getting out of a lorry cab"...are we now suggesting that this involves "significant risks"? I would expect that any driver should have an "everyday" appreciation of how to get in and out of his cab and is therefore experienced, knowledgable and therefore competent? Is there a specific training course for "getting in and out of cabs" or is it something that we accept as something that happens in everyday life? Any different from getting in and out of a FLT, dump truck etc? If its now the case that we have to produce a piece of paper for this activity, then where does it end? What about a RA and SSW for the process of sitting / getting up from an office chair? Don't want to think about toilets but they must be considered a hazard? Going up stairs? We have all, to some degree or other, mastered the art of putting one foot in front of the other, and we all accept that from time to time we will get it slightly wrong and suffer a slip, fall, stumble or whatever. Its called "life". I wouldn't even consider a RA for getting out of a lorry cab. What controls could we reasonably put in place? Harness, restraint, fall protection netting and bean bags. Its not reasonably practicable!

Hey look, surely we all accept the duty of employers to assess the risks to both employees and those not in the employment and to RECORD the SIGNIFICANT findings, but I have to say that I am with Holmezy here. Is the risk of getting in and out of a cab SIGNIFICANT?

Phil/Holmezy. I wasn't suggesting that anything specific be assessed, merely pointing out in answer to the original question that both employers have a duty to assess and where required to co-operate on the results of their assessments. The detail of what they assess was not the subject of the thread for me. The risks associated with getting in and out of any vehicle cab would have been considered at the design stage rather than at the workplace stage. Is that perhaps why you consider the risk as insignificant? However, once in use, the original design can be compromised by any number of factors thus changing the risk to the driver. For example. How likely is damage to the access? What impact would such damage have on the design risk statement? Would it affect the risk to the driver? What level of inspection and mtce is required? etc etc All questions that the employer of the driver might be required to consider at some stage. So I agree that I would dread to find anything in a work activity style of risk assessment that considered getting in and out of the cab but that doesn't preclude an assessment further up the chain. P48

Holmezy, sorry I thought I had agreed with you on that. Saturdays eh? quote from my post "So I agree that I would dread to find anything in a work activity style of risk assessment that considered getting in and out of the cab but that doesn't preclude an assessment further up the chain." I am saying that the drivers employer relies upon the design risk assessment for the vehicle that concludes the risk of getting into and out of the cab as being within standards. A very sensible, pragmatic, common sense response at the coal face that shouldn't need to be written down. However, that is different from saying that the activity of getting into and out of a cab does not require any risk assessment at all. It does, just not at the coal face in those task driven assessments.

It is the driver employer’s responsibility to assess the risk and put in place any controls for their vehicle and employee. It is the site responsibility to assess any risks associated with activities at the site, including the area to which the driver is climbing down to, such as the yard. E.g. free from slip hazards such as oil spillage etc. It would is advantageous for the contracting company to understand the risks associated with the more general activities that will be performed by third parties on their site. Thus ensuring that when evaluating tenders from contractors that they have sound H&S management in place and that when supervising on site they can intervene if third parties are deemed not to be following the controls. Interesting to see if claim is taken further and on what basis though!