Hi Steve - agreed - not a "work-related accident". Hence not reportable. Children trip over each other when playing. 

I would beg to differ from the views expressed so far.  Let's look at RIDDOR reg. 5 'Non-fatal injuries to non-workers'.  The reg. says:

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 treatment in respect of that injury; ...

the responsible person must follow the reporting procedure, subject to regulations 14 and 15.

It is clear that the child was not 'at work'.  A work-related accident is defined in reg. 2 as: '“work-related accident” means an accident arising out of or in connection with work.'  Further:

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;

Now it is clear that supervision was in place and presumably the person supervising was 'at work' i.e. not doing the supervising voluntarily or on an ad hoc basis (perhaps a parent who had dropped by). Therefore, it is arguable that the accident occurred in connection with that person's work (supervising children) and the manner in which the supervision was undertaken.  There is no reference in the regs. regarding the degree of blameworthiness attributable to the responsible person before a report is made. It may be that the level of supervision in this instance was perfectly adequate in all the circumstances. In other cicumstances, the supervision may have been inadequate or non-existant. Consequently, the requirement to report does not depend upon the adequacy or otherwise of the manner in which the supervision was undertaken, the duty is to report.

On this basis, I would suggest the matter be reported.

I would strongly disagree with the concept that work is involved due to supervision being present when a child in a school playground trips and is injured.

In the unlikely event your opinion was correct the HSE would be buried under an avalanche of reports.

There are thousands of "green paper towel" incidents daily and even filtering this count to be hospital attendances ONLY the figure would still be significant.

Chris, If you had read further on in the document you referenced you should have found this: 

'What about accidents to pupils in a playground? Most playground accidents due to collisions, slips, trips and falls are not normally reportable. Incidents are only reportable where the injury results in a pupil either being killed or taken directly to a hospital for treatment. Either is only reportable if they were caused by an accident that happened from or in connection with a work activity. This includes incidents arising because: ■ the condition of the premises or equipment was poor, eg badly maintained play equipment; or ■ the school had not provided adequate supervision, eg where particular risks were identified, but no action was taken to provide suitable supervision'

Hence NOT Reportable

The OP specifically stated "playing" i.e. not games/gym/P.E. nor undertaking outside study as part of the curriculum which indicates they were actually on a break from being taught.

This would exclude your "teaching" as "work" argument in respect of the question posed.

Playground supervision is not necessarily undertaken by teachers - the "dinner ladies" a.k.a. lunch time assistants, teachers assistants and teaching assistants often undertake such activity rather than the teachers.

Children play because play is the definitive activity and primary purpose of children - regardless of whether they are in a place of teaching or of whether adults think it may be good for them.

The key difference with the forklift example is that the forklift driver is working.  The children at play are neither working, nor playing for the purpose of someone else to conduct a work activity.  They are playing because they are children.  

Originally Posted by: stevedm

accentia...Court of Appeal Richards v Bromley.  Read and digest...pupils of school age do take risks in play whether they are under school supervision or not...the question here was about RIDDOR and the defintions have been given (I think twice) which say not reportable...the chances of a civil claim for compensation as a result of an incident such as this would have to be proven on lack of supervision or any other part of it and any defence would reply on this precident... 

The claimant had the Court of Appeal’s sympathy but sympathy was an insufficient basis on which to subvert the law of tort and it needed to be understood that not every misfortunate occurring on school premises attracted compensation.

Thanks to all of you who have taken the trouble to respond here.  I will endeavor to deal with each in turn.

Peter – You have succinctly hit the nail on the head as regards your comments concerning the HSE guidance and reference to the actual regulations.  ESI1 is guidance only.  HSE guidance cannot change the law.  I also accept your comments regarding HSE’s potential reasons for influencing the underreporting of accidents.  Unfortunately, we continue to disagree over whether supervising children is a work-related activity.

School premises are used for education.  The playground is a part of the school premises rather than being ancillary to the school building in which the teaching is undertaken.  It is a place of work in its own right not only for teachers and teaching assistants but also for ‘dinner ladies’ etc.  The supervision of children in a playground is a work activity, regardless of which member of school staff undertakes it, because it is a part of their duties to do so, within school hours and they are presumably being paid to undertake that work.  I cannot see how supervising children could not be classed as a work activity.  It therefore follows that an accident arising out of its conduct (negligently or not) is for the purpose of regs. 2 and 5, “an accident arising out of or in connection with work.”  ESI1 accepts that supervising children in the playground is a work activity or arises “in connection with a work activity.”  Were it not, EIS1 would not require the reporting of any accidents involving the supervision of children in playgrounds.

EIS1 makes it clear that accidents involving unsupervised or poorly supervised children are to be reported.  So we have a situation where an accident involving properly supervised children is not reportable but if the supervision falls below par, such as if a supervisor’s attention is diverted to playing a game on their phone, for example, and the same injury is sustained in the same circumstances, it is reportable.  That premise is, frankly, perverse and there is no provision under RIDDOR for HSE to grant such a derogation from the legal duty to report.

Kate – I accept that the children are not themselves working.  It is the supervisor who is at work and the supervision of them is the work activity.  The children are only playing at the school at that particular break time because it is ancillary to, and as I have stated above, potentially a part of their education.

Stevedm – The Court of Appeal’s decision in Richards v London Borough of Bromley [2012] EWCA Civ 1476 is irrelevant to the question posted by the OP.  That was whether the accident under consideration was reportable under RIDDOR.  The question of whether the injured child would be able to pursue a civil claim for damages is entirely another matter and if, as stated by the OP, the child simply falls over, no matter how serious the injury, no justifiable claim will arise.  Indeed, I had the unenviable task of arriving at that same conclusion and passing it on to parents in a case of break-time paraplegia on a playing field.  I agree entirely that not every misfortune on school premises attracts compensation nor, as a matter of public policy, should they do so.

A Kurdziel – A valid point with which I agree.  But the matter, strictly speaking, so far as RIDDOR is concerned, remains reportable nonetheless.

Originally Posted by: Steve W1

The playground area had no issues

So there were no defects with the "workplace"

Originally Posted by: Steve W1

adequate supervision was in place

There were no issues with supervision

Not RIDDOR.

HSE wouldn't be interested unless there was a failure of health and safety that contributed to the injury.

Health and Safety at Work Act Section 38: “Proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions shall not, in England and Wales, be instituted except by an inspector by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It’s not about whether the HSE can grant a derogation but it’s about whether in month of Sundays the HSE or anybody else would bring criminal prosecution for not reporting under RIDDOR that Johnny pushed over Henry in the playground. They wouldn’t  that is therefore the  de facto law of the land if not the de jure law of the land (I don’t think it’s de jure either,  but it practically makes no difference)

Originally Posted by: Kate

I don't agree that the children were only playing as part of someone else's work activity or for their education.

They were playing because they are children and that is what children do.

Of course children play naturally when left to their own devices. In these particular circumstances they play in a location and at a time dictated by the school. Their natural inclination to play freely is further restricted by rules prohibiting potentially dangerous games. Any general pushing and shoving amongst them may be moderated or 'policed' by break-time supervisors.

If there are no children present, the duty of supervision becomes redundant. They are therefore an integral and inescapable part of the work activity.