meyton, strictly speaking, I think you are correct; the slip or trip is the hazardous event resulting from the hazard, wet floor, etc. The Risk is the likelihood of the event occurring and the realistic potential consequence. However, ultimately we aim to prevent - so far as is reasonably practicable- someone slipping and being hurt, so identifying suitable controls is important. Sometimes i think we get hung up on the terminology and the format of the paperwork than the end result.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

There was a case few years ago in a nursing home where an employee slipped on some urine. The nursing home operator argued that part 3) applied and that they had done everything SFARP to mop up the floor but the court ruled that as this was a nursing home urine on the floor was a common hazard and so  Part 1) should apply ie the flooring should be so designed that it remains slip resistant even when wet.

If its the case i think you mean A - the home predonimantly used for male "service users" (hate that term but i think its the politicaly correct one) with a tendancy to wander at night and urinate on the floor. The HSE brought the case after one of the staff members slipped and broke her leg for a second time, which sadly resulted in needing an amputation. The home had changed nothing between the 1st and second incident so yes the HSE said the controls were not good enough for the risk. The HSE used to use the case in their Slips and Trips workshops - not sure if they still do.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

I remember the case but could not find the reference; thought I might have imagined it!

No definatly not imagine it but i think i am mixing up two cases

Woman loses leg after two slip accidents - Slips & Trips – HSE

n Ellis v Bristol City Council (2007), Ms E was employed as a care assistant at a home for the elderly for which B was responsible. She slipped on a pool of urine left by a resident of the home in the main corridor. B knew that residents regularly urinated in the main corridor and that this made the vinyl surface slippery; in fact, the presence of urine on the floor had resulted in a number of accidents. B had an adequate system of inspection and cleaning in place, risk assessments and two non-slip mats placed in the worst affected areas.

Ms E claimed compensation for a breach of regulation 12. She alleged that the floor was not suitable for the purpose for which it was used because it was frequently urinated on and was slippery when wet. The Code of Practice related to regulation 12 states that the surface of floors which are likely to get wet should be of a type which does not become unduly slippery and a slip-resistant coating should be applied where necessary.

At first instance the claim was dismissed on the basis that strict liability in relation to regulation 12 related to the construction of the floor surface and not to a transient hazard. Ms E appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court allowed the appeal and made the following points.

• The overriding aim of the 1992 Regulations is the protection of workers.

• In assessing the suitability of a floor for the purposes of regulation 12, the court was required to consider all relevant factors. The court should then decide objectively whether the floor was suitable for the purpose for which it was used.

• If a floor was regularly and frequently slippery because of a substance which lay upon it, and the slipperiness was such as to give rise to a risk to the health and safety of employees using it, then the surface of the floor could properly be said to be unsuitable.

• There had been three cases of employees slipping on urine in the three years before Ms E fell. It was therefore entirely foreseeable that there could be an injury caused by slipping in urine, resulting in injuries of at least moderate severity.

• The Code of Practice supported the finding that regularly and frequently occurring conditions should be taken into account when deciding whether a floor was suitable for use.

• Contributory negligence would be assessed at one-third.

Sorry its a bit of a long winded reply but could not find a link to the case details - this was contained within a number of cases.

Originally Posted by: DH1962

Thank you for that Brian. A good and useful bit of case law I didn't know about. I'll be using that in couple of weeks. And on a Friday, too!

Your welcome - I cannot belive its 15 years since this case! Cannot remember now if HSE prosecuted - but as A says its hard to belive that floors are still being installed with no consideration to slip resistance which people then try managing with "wet floor" signs!