We recently had an injury at work, where an operator tripped over fixed equipment. (injury itself is on the reportable list)

The accident was not process related and he was not using the equipment; the floor is in good condition and was clear of debris.  He was, harshly speaking, simply not watching where he was going and caught his foot on the end of the machine.

We have read INDG453 and this is where I formed my own opinion.  I would appreciate the benefit of other peoples' opinions on whether this is reportable as a work related incident or not.

I've been doing this for 20 years and the guidance still causes heated discussions!

I think the same it probably is work related due to the condition of the workplace, ie there was a low bit of machine someone could trip over. The thing is as you know, you can’t realistically expect people to be 100% alert, 100% of the time. Is there any reason a barrier or post could not have been fitted?

The only thing I can think of was he should not have been walking / going where he was and so on a frolic of their own, but does not sound like it. From the little we know I would probably say it is reportable.

Chris

Doesn't matter if the IP tripped over a cat, if you are at work (As in on a work site) or even if you are working on the side of the road undertaking a task deemed "being at work" then if injury is such that its a reportable injury under RIDDOR it 's a RIDDOR.

Gasman, i suggest you read the regulations.

What is meant by ‘work-related’?

RIDDOR only requires you to report accidents if they happen ‘out of or in connection with work’. The fact that there is an accident at work premises does not, in itself, mean that the accident is work-related – the work activity itself must contribute to the accident. An accident is ‘work-related’ if any of the following played a significant role:

• the way the work was carried out
• any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or
• the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened

The regulations in Reg 2 have :

“work-related accident” means an accident arising out of or in connection with work.

(2) In these Regulations, any reference to a work-related accident or dangerous occurrence includes an accident or dangerous occurrence attributable to—

(a)the manner of conducting an undertaking;

(b)the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking; or

(c)the condition of the premises used for the purposes of an undertaking or any part of them.

Chris

Once apon a time the HSE used to produce ACOPs which had a quasie legal standing and helped us mear mortals interprit regulations. But the RIDDOR one was got rid of in the purge against "red tape" when the 1993 regs were published. Sadly the web site information does not have quit the same weight.

Peter is quit right that only the courts can decide for sure - but as the HSE/LA enforcement officers who would take the case then i think the HSE advice is relvant.

Its unlikley that a case world ever be taken just for none reporting - it would not pass the public interestr test. In my experiance as an inspector for 30 years i certainly dont remember one. It was only ever added as an additional charge when we found out about seriouse injuries late in the day.

From the information supplied, i.e. someone has fallen over work equipment in the workplace - I belive this incident is workrelated and if the other factors are met (i.e. major injury or 7 day unable to do normal duties) it is reportable.