Hello all, there is a water feature of length 7m X Width 1m X depth 30cm in the middle of a showroom.

Management is not willing to cover the pond with a metal grill or place barriers around due to financial constraints.

Can anyone propose a safety measure which can be implemented?

Thanks for your help.

I think it is important to keep a sense of proportion. Consider the fountains in Trafalgar Square, London. Where are the grids there? And that is where an uncontrolled, unsupervised general population are present in significant numbers compared with what will exist in your showroom.

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

I think it is important to keep a sense of proportion. Consider the fountains in Trafalgar Square, London. Where are the grids there? And that is where an uncontrolled, unsupervised general population are present in significant numbers compared with what will exist in your showroom.

I agree with what you mentioned. 

The pond is right in the middle and well illuminated with constant rusting water. You cannot miss it! but we have recurrent incidents involving clients falling into the pond. To add upon, the showroom is the one which is among the less visited. Note that I'm talking about a car showroom.

Originally Posted by: RitishHSE

It is in fact a car showroom. There has been several incidents involving clients falling into the pond while moving backwards to have a better view of the car. It is certainly a lack a vigilance on the part of the clients but they can still sue the company in case they are injured as per existing legislation in Mauritius.

Reposition the cars? place seating/sales desk around the pond? all low cost/free solutions to prevent people from falling by their carelessness.

(captcha tHin)

Edited by user 21 August 2020 12:32:49(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

drain the pond.  job done. 

#9 Fall from height risk though?

Edited by user 21 August 2020 13:58:15(UTC)  | Reason: this answer was supposed to come after post #9

If it was empty of water, it would be a pit, and thus a fall from height hazard - as fall from height includes falling from ground level into a pit.

I don't think you did make an error - there is a fall from height risk.

Appoint volunteer lifeguards 

I will be happy to volunteer for 6 months and will supply my own Baywatch shorts ;)

Steve at #4 Ritish has said that the customers can and DO fall in.

So, for me, it seems that the business case for doing something is a straight matter of deciding whether an unhappy customer is good for sales. Customer is standing back looking at the alternative between buying a Rolls Royce, SUV or latest Mini and falls in. Are they likely to buy any of them?

Todai, puzzled as to why you think that a "pit" could only be present at a construction site. Not that the word "pit" would be relevant if considering e.g. the Work at Height Regulations 2005 if this car showroom was in Great Britain, which according to Ritish it's not.

Security image starts MG - another possibility.

Todai

I don't think there are many arguing on safety grounds for protection.

As to the farmer working near a cliff edge, the Work at Height Regs will apply to them if in GB, and in very broad terms would tell them to take some precautions when near the edge.

But if it is the cliff top path which is a right of way along the edge of their field then the Occupiers Liability Act would apply. So, as you have pointed out, in general the case law dating back to the first decade of the 20th Century says that it's a natural feature, the risks are obvious and no duty to protect the visitor.

The case law then got expanded to include artificial features that are similar to natural features following the fatality of a person who drowned in a reservoir. Then the case law was clarified in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council which says in effect that if there is something that makes the feature exceptionally dangerous, and perhaps not obviously so, then some duty of care might apply.

But back to the "pit", there are lots of pits in places other than construction, e.g. casting pits in a foundry or a slurry pit on a farm. Whether or not it is a "pit" is somewhat immaterial. The Work at Height Regs (if they applied, or if similar legislation is in place in Mauritius) would look at the potential for falling from one level to one below. Whether or not there is a low barrier in between is largely irrelevant.

But when the students (or others) climb that statue in Glasgow and replace the cone (again), they are not at work, so the WAH Regs don't come into play. Back to Occupier's Liability. The risks are obvious and whoever climbs the statue takes the risk. Postcards sales would diminish if there wasn't a cone photo opportunity.

When we get to the roadside kerb, there is obviously a risk and one that is commonly dealt with where e.g. there is expectation of the need for wheelchair access. Plenty of case law (and litigation that doesn't make it to case law) on what standards are acceptable or not. So, as example highways authorities often have an "intervention level" to set a threshold as to when to deal with uneven footpath surfaces, that enable risk-based decision making (partly dependent on the volume of nature of those using the path).

I can't get excited about this.  I once visited a hotel in Gatwick where they had a large open water feature shaped like a pond in the middle of the floor with statues of geese taking off and people just either walked past it or stood and had a look, I sat in the bar and had a beer and watched. No one fell in.  If you go to Las Vegas one of the hotels has a complete canal system running through the lobby and people walk next to it or stand and look at it, I sat in the bar and had a beer and watched. No one fell in.  Perhaps people who are buying cars need to take more account of their surroundings and take more care. 

My point is that life poses risks everyday and we can't control them all and we need to make people take responsibility for themselves and look out for themselves.  We need to stop trying to manage every risk on earth. Just needed to get that off my chest!!!!!

Edited by user 26 August 2020 14:53:56(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling

Pits can fill with water whereas by its design a road edged with kerbs also has drains to remove rain/melt water

Yes there are some badly designed and poorly maintained examples which contradict the above, but in general

Originally Posted by: chris42

If we are now saying this feature is actually only 30 cm high as well deep ( I for some reason thought it was higher and just 30 cm of water so people were just falling back and sitting in it. I’m not sure about it being a pit or not if the bottom of water is the same level as the floor. I know if you are stood next to a hole then you can be considered working at height, but if the bottom of the water is same height as floor not sure. However, I don’t think the work at height regs are applicable as the customers are not at work. Seems a moot point anyway.

However, if this is only 30 cm from the floor and 1m wide then I have to wonder when people fall backwards, are they landing on the other edge of the feature as it is only 1m wide? on their back, neck or head etc. That could be quite nasty! I would assume if someone was to be significantly hurt by hitting the other edge and it came out this was a known hazard it would not go well in court.

Chris

You rightly mentioned the fact that people fall backwards in the water feature. This incident has happened several times.

Regarding the location of the injury, for an adult it will be around the back, but, for a teen or a children it could be somewhere around the neck or head which could lead to major injuries or even fatal.

I do personally think that the layout of the showroom is such that it increase the risks. However, not much can be done to redesign the showroom.