Hi, I am reviewing the way work report accidents and it's thrown up a big debate about what is a Work Related Accident - people are using "accident at work", "industrial accident", "work related accident" and then the usual "Accident".  Can someone please help me understand the definition of a Work Related Accident.  I work for an Enforcement Agents so the types of accidents currently up for debate are:  An Agent slipped down a muddy bank on the way to a debtors house and hurt his back.  An Agent had his finger bitten whilst posting paperwork through a debtors door.  An Agent was in traffic in his van and a cyclist drove into the side of the van injuring his face.  Thanks in advance. 

brian beat me to it but

Ok, definition, for what its worth, is something like “an uncontrolled event which gives rise to a personal injury or some other form of loss, that arises out of work activities.”

The key things the definition includes are:

1. it has to be related to work activities-someone suddenly having a heart attack and dying in the office is not a work related accident since there is nothing  in the control of employer that either caused the heart attack or they could have reasonably done to prevent it. Someone tripping up in a car park at work might work related if the trip was due to the condition of the carpark. If they simple tripped over a shoelace that would not be work related. You need to investigate each  accident/incident to decide if they are work related.   The case of Kennedy vs Cordia (Services) makes it clear that “work related” means that the injured party suffered an injury because they were doing something because they had to do it for work reasons.

2. There has to be an injury or some loss eg damage to equipment. If something sort of happens and everybody takes in a sharp intake of breath and says that was close-that is what I call a “near miss”. “Near misses” need invest gaiting but treat them separately for statistical purposes.

3. and most obvious, the event must be unplanned and uncontrolled.it should not have happened according to your safe system of work, which indicates that there is something missing in controls, and that needs to be addressed.  

Debbie, for what it's worth all three of your scenarios look like work-related accidents to me. One would probably not fall within the reporting requirements of "RIDDOR" (assuming other parameters were met) due to being a work-related road traffic accident.

P

Originally Posted by: Debbie Mayneord

 An Agent slipped down a muddy bank on the way to a debtors house and hurt his back.

 An Agent had his finger bitten whilst posting paperwork through a debtors door.

An Agent was in traffic in his van and a cyclist drove into the side of the van injuring his face. 

1) Were they taking an unecessary short-cut? Unless this is some rural encampment most properties have a defined access.

2) Given a lot of clients could have (I am presuming) animals on the other side of the door have the agents been trained how to post documents without pushing their hand through the letter box? If not animals then it is a case of assault.

3) Not sure from your brief description how a cyclist driving in to the side of a vehicle becomes a workplace accident

Looking at these I would say that they were all work related:

An Agent slipped down a muddy bank on the way to a debtors house and hurt his back.

Well the agents  job is to enters peoples property and carry out enforcement actions. Not surprisingly  some people might try to stop this by locking gates and otherwise denying access, and they might need to  gain access by unorthodox means. So that is work related

  An Agent had his finger bitten whilst posting paperwork through a debtors door.

 Lets assume the biter is a dog! The enforcement  officer has to post the notice through the letterbox and dogs have been know to attack people. When I worked for Defra we often had to deal with biting incidents involving our staff, while entering premises.  

​​​​​​​An Agent was in traffic in his van and a cyclist drove into the side of the van injuring his face.

As Kate said this is again work related.

RIDDOR is a red herring (like a kipper but drier)!

The question is whether this is a workplace accident and I suppose whether they a) need to record and investigate it  it as part of their H&S management  system and b) include it in their internal stats.  There seems to be prejudice against reporting or investigating incidents “off site” with the assumption that every body works at certain location and anything that happens away from there is  not work related but the guy in question fell down a muddy embankment. This needs to be recorded and investigated and the questions to be asked include: why he was going down the bank rather than taking a better route, but it could be that was the only option for him at the time? It is impossible to provide detailed instructions for every eventuality, but you can train people to make better decisions perhaps that’s what needs to be done but you need to record and investigate incidents so that you have an idea of what people are actually doing when they go out to work rather than just hoping that they follow some set procedure.

Brian - not sure that red herrings are particularly sustainable.

Politicians (of all colours) and others use red herrings all the time (and have for centuries or longer) to avoid dealing with issues including things like climate change

Let's commit to decarbonisaton whilst not Governing to prevent the opening of a new deep coal mine.

Let's spend some money on solar panels whilst asking for a licence to expand oil extraction.

I get the confusion about the terminology for work-related accidents. Generally speaking, a work-related accident is any accident that occurs in the course of employment, whether it happens on or off the job site.

reported this as i  don't  trust the link!

Is this a subtle ad for a "workers compenstion attorney" ? makes me think that this has been posted by someone abroad who might be trying to drum up business for someone.