After being absent due to this incident for more than 3 days, then IMHO this is actually reportable. Reason it actually occurred in connection with work.... the person who kicked the trolley was working the person who was unfortunate to walk past was in the course of his/her work? A further follow up is management issues with the person who had such reason to kick the trolley also!

Please find an extract from regulation 2, (1)(a) from RIDDOR95 below; (1) In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires - “accident” includes (a) an act of non-consensual physical violence done to a person at work In my mind that makes it reportable as an over 3 day.

I agree sound reportable to me , and I also think Vicarious Liability apples - the small wheeled trolley was presumably provided by the company, the fact that it was not used in the way described is surly what Vicarious Liability is all about? Brian

I agree, definitely reportable, and vicarious liability for the employer. An accident has happened to a third party through the fault of the employers employee. The employee who kicked the trolley has an attitude problem and that should be dealt with under disciplinary procedures by the employer.

I think it's interesting that right from the start, we are discussing a statutory requirement to make a report under RIDDOR, and the question of vicarious liability in the same breath! On the first count, whether to report or not, I suggest, yes, it is reportable. On the essentially unrelated issue of vicarious liability, of course, there is case law that suggests that an employer would not be held vicariously liable for the 'frolic' of an employee. I suggest that if there were a claim pursued for damages, that there is a very reasonable chance that the employer would not be held vicariously liable in the circumstances described.

quote=Phil Rose] there is a very reasonable chance that the employer would not be held vicariously liable in the circumstances described.

I am pretty sure that vicarious liability applies only when a 3rd party is involved - in this situation, where 2 employees are involved, the employer is just plain "liable". If the injured person was eg a contractor, then vicarious liability applies. In both cases of course, the employer is liable........... BUT WAIT!! WAS THIS GOING OFF "ON A FROLIC OF HIS OWN"?? - in which case, the employer would not be liable, as they are not for assault by employees.......................!!

"the employees for some reason got really frustrated with what they were doing and kicked a small wheeled trolly that was close to hand and it hit the other employee". I notice two things from this: 1) employees 2) they So more than one employee got frustrated? What caused the frustration? Was there a particular issue with the work or how they were havingto perform it? Had they raised it with the employer to try to things changed? Were they taken seriously? Was there action taken to help? These are all questions that need to be taken into connsideration prior to making judgements. If there was an issue that was not taken seriously etc., by the employer, then there is no question about a liability for the employer. Was the employee off due to the accident or was it minor? Were they scheduled to take a holiday and was the absence therefore completely separate from the accident? I would want more information on this to allow a balanced judgment to be made. Son of Skywalker

teh_boy, I am not sure if that was a 'pop' at me, and I wonder what in my post suggested that I didn't understand vicarious liability? If anything, I would have thought that my post demonstrated that I did! So, yes I think I do have a reasonable understanding of the 'doctrine' of VL which is reasonably straightforward and is reasonably well established in case law, although it is relatively clear that not everyone does understand it. I was and am still unclear what the reporting requirement of RIDDOR had to do with whether the employer was likely to be held vicariously liable for the action of the employee in this particular case. VL is not limited to situations involving 'third parties' (I think you mean by this, an employee injuring someone else other than another employee of the same employer). VL can apply to a situation where one employee has inured another employee (of the same employer), try Lister/Romford. In the example used, I suggest it was a 'frolic' and that there may not have been sufficient connection between the employer and the action of the employee, for the employer to have been found VL, but a court may decide otherwise. Similarly, while employers are not normally likely to be held VL for assaults carried out by employees on others (there is case law on that as well), there are exceptions, where an employer may be held to be VL for an 'assualt' by an employee, including the actions of Police officers, bailiffs etc.

Phil is quite right, this is Reportable and VL has nothing to do with that question. I sometimes wonder why Torts, VL, Volenti non fit Injuria etc are included in the NEBOSH syllabus. These issue only seem to confuse so many of us and in practise are of very little use to a practioner. On the other hand if we understand it all properly, we can be the source of knowledge at work if these issues arise in a claim.

I take your point Juan Carlos but it may not have been a case of fooling around, it may have been a reaction to a stressful situation. I would carry out a full and thorough investigation looking at all the issues including the immediate and root causes, particularly what may have triggered the reaction of the 'offender'. What I certainly not be doing would be advising others to take legal action against another employee that would lead to his potential dismissal. In my book that is not the role of the safety professional. It does us a disservice and helps to perpetuate the claims culture. Taking your reasoning a step further, would you also advocate taking similar action against the supervisor for failing to supervise, or manager for failing to manage?

I have re-read your original post Juan Carlos and stand corrected. I am guilty of the crime of assuming and apologise. It appears we are on the same wavelength after all. Ciao.

It must be the snow :) At least it's not just me getting stuff wrong. Is it the weekend yet?