Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
kdrum  
#1 Posted : 20 January 2011 09:44:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kdrum

Looking for a bit of clarification from my peers here - we had a student who visited a business next door to college and slipped on ice banging his head. The IP was seen at scene and wound cleaned, IP asked to lie down as feeling light headed but no facility at this place so he was transported next door to our building where he was seen in common room by first aider who rightly so advised as head wound we call ambulance. Ambulance arrived and paramedic advised IP attent hospital and they took them there.

Once I completed accident investigation I offered to supply business owner with copies of report so he could submit RIDDOR he thought I would submit but I said as the duty holder and as accident happened to member of public on his site and was subsequently taken to hospital he should report.

He then took advice from his external H&S competent person who said as IP wasn't kept in overnight no report. My interpretation of regs is that a member of public being taken from scene to hospital it is reportable, even if no treatment given. Treatment was given in this case.

Thought please
barnaby  
#2 Posted : 20 January 2011 09:58:03(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

I agree that if the accident happened on the other business's premises and it otherwise met the requirements that going directly to hospital would make it reportable. (Unless it was a day release student in which case he would be an employee)
cres  
#3 Posted : 20 January 2011 09:59:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cres

Hi,

Just give RIDDOR a call they are really helpfull and will tell you if it should be reported and whom should do so. Then you have it from the horses mouth. Dont worry they dont ask you for any company details they are just there to advise you on the correct course of action.

Hope that helps

Cres
SteveL  
#4 Posted : 20 January 2011 10:20:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

I would agree with you that it is reportable, by the duty holder.
The condition of the premises has contributed to the accident and as such, is required to be reported.
Juan Carlos Arias  
#5 Posted : 20 January 2011 11:19:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Juan Carlos Arias

I also think is reportable, however, it is not your problem or responsibility to ensure it actually gets reported. By informing them of their duties you've done enough. Just keep a record of what you did.
Bob Shillabeer  
#6 Posted : 20 January 2011 11:42:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Juan is correct this accident is nothing to do with you as it happened on someone elses poremises, you simple gave forst aid and arranged for the ambulance, just like a first aider really. The person who manages the premises where the accident happened or the injured persons employer is responsible for reporting the accident under RIDDOR. Give the employer details of what first aid was given and the times etc of when the ambulance attended and took the casualty to hospital, your side of things is then complete.
Jane Blunt  
#7 Posted : 20 January 2011 11:55:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

Their H&S competent person is incorrect.

RIDDOR section 3(1)(c) applies. Schedule 1, the definition of major injuries does not apply.

It is reportable, provided it did take place on their premises (and not on the public footpath in between).
Bob Shillabeer  
#8 Posted : 20 January 2011 13:12:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Read your original posting again. Are you saying the IP was one of your students? If so was he going on part of his training? Did the accident happen on the public pavement? If so he was under your control as a work placement student until he arrives at the premises where he is to undergo that work experience,. Therefore any reporting under RIDDOR is your responsibility.
Kate  
#9 Posted : 20 January 2011 13:55:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Doesn't the 'member of the public being taken to hospital 'criterion only apply if they are taken there directly from the scene? Which they weren't in this case.
Canopener  
#10 Posted : 20 January 2011 13:55:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Could I suggest a quick look at the last entry of the table on page 18 of http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l73.pdf

If a student on anothers premises, the the duty holder is the person in charge of the premises!

However, now read para 45 b. "..from the premises where the accident occurred".. In this case they were taken back to the school/college and THEN taken to hospital.

NOT reportable at all?
Canopener  
#11 Posted : 20 January 2011 13:56:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Snap - oops!
kdrum  
#12 Posted : 20 January 2011 14:35:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kdrum

Dear all thanks for replies - it would seem the Aye's have it.

Bob he was not there as part of course he was there as customer and accident happened on an icy section where outside displays were displayed

Kate only reason not taken direct was that the business first aider not keen to treat as she had been told only to attend to staff!! Student was feeling light headed no place to lie down there and our building is next door so was taken there to have one of our first aiders attend

I did phone RIDDOR helpline who agreed accident happened on the other business's premises and although not taken directly to hospital from there the duty was on business to report.

Thanks again for replies
Zyggy  
#13 Posted : 20 January 2011 14:47:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

For a non-employee accident to be reported two criteria have to be met, not just one, i.e. it has to have arisen out of a "work activity" (debatable definition) & they are taken straight to hospital by whatever means.

The situation outlined in the first instance does not make it clear whether the slip on the ice was because of some defect in the organisation's systems of clearing ice, snow, or that they slipped on a rogue patch. It could well be that the business occupies a large area where it would be impossible to eradicate all of the icy areas, especially with the severe weather experienced recently.

Therefore until there is more clarification, I would say maybe!!
Bob Shillabeer  
#14 Posted : 20 January 2011 15:23:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

kdrum you say "Bob he was not there as part of course he was there as customer and accident happened on an icy section where outside displays were displayed" If he was out buying say lunch then it is not reportable under RIDDOR as RIDDOR only requires accidents involving the employement/work sinario. If he was simply buying lunch to apply RIDDOR would mean everyone having the unfortunate luck to have an accident would snow the system down with hundreds more accident reports. Just because there were signs outside does not mean the property was owned or operated by the person who put the signs there, still belongs to the local authority as part of the public highway.

Canopener  
#15 Posted : 20 January 2011 15:35:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Not sure of that one. I go to Tesco as a customer to buy a sandwich. I slip, trip or fall due to the condition of the premises, slippery floor, dodgy floor tile' wobbly step, snow and ice etc etc etc. I am taken diretly to hospital. Reportable?

For the answer see RIDDOR reg 2 interpretation

"an accident or a dangerous occurrence which arises out of or in connection with work shall include a reference to an accident, or as the case may be, a dangerous occurrence attributable to the manner of conducting an undertaking, the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking and the condition of the premises so used or any part of them.".

Note 'conducting an undertaking' and the last bit - condition of premises!

Bob Shillabeer  
#16 Posted : 20 January 2011 16:05:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Phil, the main part is you go there as a customer not in connection with work. Simply buying lunch is not part of your work activity. Your employer does not require you to eat as part of your job, therefore you simply go there as a member of the public who happens to be buying an article. The accident is one of public domain. There is of coarse a duty on the shop owner to make sure it isa safe as is reasonably practicable but that does not fall within the RIDDOR Regs. In the paragraph you quote it clearly states in connection with work, so simply going into a shop of any kind does not require reporting under RIDDOR.
Zyggy  
#17 Posted : 20 January 2011 16:16:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

Bob,

Think of this from the angle of the shop premises - which is a workplace.

If they have caused the accident to happen, i.e. inadequate cleaning regime; & the person as a non-employee is taken directly to hospital, then the incident is reportable to the Local Authority under RIDDOR.
Kate  
#18 Posted : 20 January 2011 16:33:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Bob, buying sandwiches may not be a work activity but selling them certainly is. If a customer comes on to your premises to buy your sandwiches, this is therefore part of your work activity.
Canopener  
#19 Posted : 20 January 2011 16:35:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Bob, you miss the point. It is NOT that MY visit to get my sandwich is in connection with work but whether the CAUSE of the accident was!!!!!!

Whether you like it or not, accidents to people NOT AT WORK (i.e. me getting my sandwich or going in to buy a pair of shoes, a bunch of flowers for Granny etc etc) ARE reportable in the circumstances where the IP is taken DIRECTLY to hospital and where the accident arisies out of work, the definition of which I have supplied already, but will tidy it up to see if that helps with understanding.

"an accident that arises out of or in connection with work includes an accident attributable to the manner of conducting an undertaking, and the condition of the premises so used or any part of them.".

2 of our enforcement officers, one with 30 + years experience say that the accident in the scenario that I posted, would be reportable, for the reasons that I have alluded to. But what do they know?

Right, now off to put my blinkers back on!
Bob Shillabeer  
#20 Posted : 20 January 2011 16:48:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

If the accident had happened to an employee of the store then yes it would be reportable, but the accident under discussion was to a customer, so how can that be deemed to have been to someone at work? It beats me how some people get things mixed up like this. The person was a private citizen going about his own business i.e. shopping, and not working.
IanS  
#21 Posted : 20 January 2011 17:05:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
IanS

So Bob, a customer in a DIY shop hit & killed by a FLT isn't reportable?

I think you'll find it is (was)!
Heather Collins  
#22 Posted : 20 January 2011 17:08:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

Phil Rose wrote:
I go to Tesco as a customer to buy a sandwich. I slip, trip or fall due to the condition of the premises, slippery floor, dodgy floor tile' wobbly step, snow and ice etc etc etc. I am taken diretly to hospital. Reportable?


Phil - yes I believe you are quite correct.

Bob- you are entirely missing the point here. It makes absolutely no difference whether the person (member of the public) having the accident was at work or not (clearly they were not in the case Phil describes). As Phil has already said twice the RIDDOR definition of "out of or in connection with work" in this case relates to the manner in which someone in control or premises (in the hypothetical case, our supermarket company) conducts their undertaking and the condition of their premises (Phil's wobbly tile). Note that this reporting scenario ONLY applies if the person having the accident (our hypothetical member of the public) goes directly to hospital from the scene of the accident.

Back to the original question. The OP has no duty to report. It can be argued either way whether the owner of the premises where the fall occurred has a duty depending on whether you consider the IP was taken directly to hospital or not.
Bob Shillabeer  
#23 Posted : 20 January 2011 17:13:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

There seems to be more than one misunderstanding, if someone not in employment has an accident when in a shop whether run over by a FLT or not, of course it is reported to the HSE or LA but not under RIDDOR. The accident would be investigated by the HSE/LA, but RIDDOR is about gathering information about accidents by the HSE for recording the number of accidents not for investigating them.
Heather Collins  
#24 Posted : 20 January 2011 17:16:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

Sorry Bob but that's just rubbish. Of coruse it's reported under RIDDOR - what other mechanism is there for reporting?

This from the HSE Guide to RIDDOR:

In the following examples the accidents, which involve people who are not at work, would all be regarded as ‘arising out of or in connection with work’. As a result, if one of the people died or suffered an injury leading to them being taken to a hospital, regulation 3(1)(c) would apply and the death or injury must be reported:

(a) someone shopping who was involved in an accident at an escalator in a shop, where the accident was attributable to the design or condition of the escalator;
SimonL  
#25 Posted : 20 January 2011 17:27:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SimonL

I love it when people start quoting stuff at each other.
Regs at dawn, ten paces apart!
Bob Shillabeer  
#26 Posted : 20 January 2011 17:30:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Then Lord Young has got a point then, bring on the revised legislation and deal with accidents that affect people at work and not those who are simply going about thier daily lives.
Canopener  
#27 Posted : 20 January 2011 17:35:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

bob shillabeer wrote:
If the accident had happened to an employee of the store then yes it would be reportable, but the accident under discussion was to a customer, so how can that be deemed to have been to someone at work? It beats me how some people get things mixed up like this. The person was a private citizen going about his own business i.e. shopping, and not working.


Bob, I despair. Please, please, please read RIDDOR. RIDDOR also includes reporting requirements for people NOT AT WORK. Reg 3(1)c This really is VERY basic stuff.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l73.pdf Please read paragrpah 35 in particular examples a and b. It couldn't be simpler!

35 In the following examples the accidents, which involve people who are not at work, would all be regarded as ‘arising out of or in connection with work’. As a result, if one of the people died or suffered an injury leading to them being taken to a hospital, regulation 3(1)(c) would apply and the death or injury must be reported:
(a) someone shopping who was involved in an accident at an escalator in a shop, where the accident was attributable to the design or condition of the escalator;
(b) a patient/resident in a nursing or residential care home who tripped and fell over an obstruction such as an electrical cable lying across a floor in the home;
(c) a member of the public who, while visiting a factory, was overcome by fumes which escaped accidentally from a process being carried on there;
(d) a pupil or student, who was involved in an accident attributable in some way to:
(i) work organisation (eg by a teacher);
(ii) plant;
(iii) a substance; or
(iv) the condition of the premises.
Bob Shillabeer  
#28 Posted : 20 January 2011 18:04:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

For some reason I read the original posting as a shop, but clearly on reading it again there is no mention of what the premises was. If it was a shop I still hold to my view on reporting under RIDDOR, but as it seems I was wrong on the type of premises I bow to the judgement of others. Thanks for the link to the revised guidance Phil, I will read and inwardly digest.
Bob Shillabeer  
#29 Posted : 20 January 2011 18:05:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

All 92 pages of it.
DP  
#30 Posted : 20 January 2011 19:23:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
DP

Just a couple of lines on the debate – one important part missing here - the accident investigation and its findings. The findings allow the judgment to be made whether accidents have occurred involving MOTP in retail premises.

In the examples below all parties taken to hospital immediately from the scene of the accident.

01 – Child falls out of a shopping trolley and cuts her head on the floor – investigation identifies no fault with the equipment – not reportable

02 – IP slips on ice (car park) in bad weather conditions – investigations identifies that the store had gritted recognised walkway but not the entire car park – not reportable

There are quite a few HELA doc out there specific to retail and they quote various examples.

In a nutshell – if the retailer is a fault for the incident e.g. poor maintence, spills, unattended equipment or an – reportable. If not, not reportable

Bob you are way off the mark regarding the HSE / LA’s don’t use RIDDOR for premises inspections - what do you think the ICC does with the F2508? Put the findings on a spreadsheet! No way mate copy go’s to the LA and they are in 4 times out of 5.
Canopener  
#31 Posted : 20 January 2011 19:26:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Right then. I vote that we stop 'Bob bashing'. For today at least! And for this thread! :-)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.