Hi All

Just wanting to pick your brains please. There has been an incident where an employee was leaving work at 18:50. They had their coat and bag in front of them on their way through the reception area to clock out. The coat and bag (by the persons own admission was blocking their view). They didn't see a wet floor sign in front of them and consequently tripped over it causing them to hurt their knees. They subsequently took time off work to recover and this resulted in a Lost Time Incident. The lighting was good and the floor was in good condition. The floor had just been mopped within the last hour and the sign was in the area where the floor was last mopped. The wet floor sign was prominently displayed and the floor was dry at the time of the incident. The sign was about to be picked up by a cleaner at 19:00. The question is was this work-related? I refer you to the HSE's guidance (below) which helps us determine if an incident is in fact work-related or not. Let me know your thoughts, please.

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

Edited by user 30 July 2021 07:45:05(UTC)  | Reason: spelt 'admission' wrong in first issue

work related for me - the cleaner was working for the company the IP was only in the building because they worked there. Wet Floor signs are a rubbish control for reasons just like this.

38019

You stated that this was a lost time incident, - but not indicated the severity - has the injured person been away from work / normal duties for more than 7 days? If not, then not RIDDOR.

From my resding of the incident, your company provided a safe system of work, erected a safety warnig sign - which ironically became the tripping hazard.  

Will the HSE be interested in this incident - 99.9% NOT

Will the public / your employees benefit from the HSE being informed - 95% NO

Will the employee be able to get compensation - probably as insurers will settel out of court, even though they were IMHO 95% responsible for the incident

IMHO - this is not work related, just that it occured in the workplace 

One of the criteria for RIDDOR is the way the work was done. This is not in this case the injured person it is the way the cleaner undertook their duties (isn’t it). Ie did they put the sign in a poor position like just around a blind bend on a walk route. The op said the person was carrying items obscuring their view (carrying a bag and coat is not exactly unusual). These items at best would only obscure  1 to 2 meters in front of the IP so if the sign was badly placed just around a blind corner then I think it could meet RIDDOR criteria ( the way the work was done and the cleaner was definitely working), but only the op knows all the facts. If it was in a long corridor or in open foyer and could be seen a distance away, then it does not meet the criteria.

Chris

Edited by user 06 August 2021 08:41:21(UTC)  | Reason: fat fingers

Because we don't pay the cleaner to hang around until the floor is dry so that signange can be immediately removed.

Then of course what definition of dry should be applied?

The technology has an impracticable side which is why I chose to ignore it with industrial duty units often quite bulky and too heavy to be carrying up and down stairs.

Then there are disposal issues with ride on versions regularly observed discharging used cleaning fluid down the nearest external car park rainwater drain.