Morning all,

Utility companies across the UK will have thousands of miles of networks and pipes running underground.

If a member of the public suffered a specified injury as a result of a defective manhole cover near a road, would this typically be reported as a RIDDOR? (e.g. broken ankle from walking over a missing or damaged cover)

The road would be maintained by the local council but the defective cover would be the responsiblty of the utlity company. Is it a workplace? I'm leanging towards 'yes' it is a RIDDOR, but i can interpret the guidance in various ways. If this example was RIDDOR reportable I would expect there to be a large number of RIDDOR submissions by utility companies for similar injuries to members of the public, but i cannot find much evidence to support this.

Does anyone on this forum have any prior experience of this issue?

I think you are over thinking this.

Most members of the public consider the streets to be under the control of the Local Authority a point confirmed by who the companies must contact for permits and licences to undertake street works.

The only exception is when the barriers go up around a work site and some notice declares temporary occupation e.g. Big Dig working on behalf of OpenReach.

By all means if a member of the public contacts your organisation directly about an issue make a record but in the first instance the ambulance chasers invariably go after the public purse.

Morning AM

First thing to remember is that the thresholds of types of reportable injuries that apply to employed workers do not apply to a member of the public NOT "at work".

Instead Reg 5 of RIDDOR says:

Non-fatal injuries to non-workers 5.Where any person not at work, as a result of a work-related accident, suffers— (a) an injury, and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatmentin respect of that injury; or [CONTINUES] 

OK, so this person with a broken leg might well be taken in an ambulance to A&E for treatment, so they then meet the severity threshold for the accident to be reportable but only if the accident is "work-related".

Which probably would be the case if the utility company (or some contractor working for them) left the manhole uncovered during construction work, but probably not if it is a case of a manhole cover which has moved over the years. That could result from the manhole and its cover not being maintained, but equally might be due to the *pavement surface around moving up or down.

*Note I am using the word "pavement" in its highways engineering meaning, not only what you might term the footway. The "pavement" is what the "road" is made up of - includes the road, and any associated cycleway, footway etc.

Under legislation other than HSWA the owner of the "road" - for a "public road", usually the local authority - is responsible for its condition. Most such owners have policies that set an "intervention level" to inform decisions on where to prioritise maintenance.

Remember also that HSE tries very hard to keep out of involvement in road safety issues, EXCEPT in relation to "WORK" activities being done on the roads themselves. RIDDOR is primarily about giving HSE intelligence as to how many accidents are happening during work and an idea of what the immediate causes are. I think it is reasonable to assume that HSE would not welcome lots of RIDDOR reports for people tripping over protruding manhole covers!

maybe i'm looking at it too simplistically.

Party A has responsility to maintain safe infrastructure. They failed to do this, which contributed to injury to member of the public. 

Is failing to maintain safe environment not work related?

A public space is not a work environment which an employer can excercise control over.

For utility companies their "temporary" work environment is within their compound, fencing or little tent.

IF utility companies were liable for the general condition in which they left the public highway they would all be broke from the re-instatement charges.

Grand scheme of things member of public gets injured, member of public sues local authority.

AM

Depending on which criminal or civil law you consider you need to look at more than just "Party A".

Suppose the manhole cover is placed in the carriageway of a not particularly heavily trafficked road, it should be designed and constructed to take account of the volume and nature of the traffic that uses that road.

Suppose something happens in the main road that runs parallel to that road, and all the HGVs are diverted to use the road with the manhole cover. Suddenly all the thinking that went into the design and construction of the manhole and its cover could go out of the window.

May be those employing the drivers of the HGVs are Party B, may be not.

Almost invariably what each of the relevant "Parties" is qualified by the expectation that they do what is "reasonable" (in the circumstances), or reasonably practicable with some consideration of who has some level of control over the environment where the manhole and its cover are.

Lots of IFs and BUTs and very little set in stone.