Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
February 13, 2013

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

Firm fined £1 for banksman fatality

A metal manufacturer, which went into administration in March last year, has been fined £1, in relation to a lifting operation that resulted in a worker fatality.
 
Bruce Dempsey, 25, from Eccles, was killed at Applied Fusion Ltd’s factory in Patricroft, Manchester when a machine weighing half a tonne fell from a forklift truck and struck him on the head. He was working as a banksman when the incident occurred on 2 December 2009. He died at the scene.
 
Manchester Crown Court heard that the company had been moving four lathes into a bigger workshop at the factory. The fourth machine was attached to a metal table, under which the truck’s forks were positioned, so it could be moved. However, as the forklift driver did so, the lathe became unstable and fell, resulting in Mr Dempsey’s death.
 
The court was told the company had taken over the factory six weeks before the incident, but a general health and safety audit had not been carried out at the new premises.
 
The HSE investigated the incident and found the company had not planned the work in advance, so that the machine could be moved safely. The firm had its own qualified and competent engineer, who was responsible for overseeing lifting operations, but it failed to inform him that it was planning to move the machines.
 
The forklift operator, who lifted the machine, had attended a one-day driver’s training course in October 2006, but was not trained and competent to lift any complicated loads that were not on pallets.
 
HSE inspector Mike Lisle said the company could have placed the machine on a pallet first before carrying out the lift, or it could have strapped the machine to the forklift truck. The firm could also have ensured that banksmen were far enough out of the way when the task was being carried out.
 
Sentenced on 6 February, Applied Fusion Ltd was found guilty of breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. The court found the administration of the company to be above board. No mitigation was offered.
 
Speaking after the hearing, inspector Lisle said the HSE pursued the case through the courts because the incident was such an obvious breach. He commented: “It was important to bring this case to court to raise awareness of this issue, so that similar tragic incidents can be prevented from happening again.
 
“Workers at the factory were told to move heavy, bulky machinery using a forklift truck, and the company should have made sure the work was properly planned in advance. If the machine had been strapped to the forks, and workers told to stay a safe distance away, then Mr Dempsey’s death could have been avoided.”

Approaches to managing the risks associated Musculoskeletal disorders

In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, we hear from Matt Birtles, Principal Ergonomics Consultant at HSE’s Science and Research Centre, about the different approaches to managing the risks associated with Musculoskeletal disorders.

Matt, an ergonomics and human factors expert, shares his thoughts on why MSDs are important, the various prevalent rates across the UK, what you can do within your own organisation and the Risk Management process surrounding MSD’s.

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Altea69
Altea69
11 years ago

Colin is spot on. If you have a conviction which proves a breach, any civil claim becomes a matter of “how much”.

Andy
Andy
11 years ago

As I understand it the amendment doesn’t take away the claim for breach of statutory duty, but changes absolute duties to SFAIRP. This would mean that employers are no longer without a defense against a breach of statutory duty, they are able to claim that they did everything that was reasonably practicable.
Isn’t HASWA already statute barred for civil claims, so a breach of HASWA isn’t able to be used in civil evidence just now ?

Colin
Colin
11 years ago

“I really cannot see why the HSE pursue with the prosecution when there is no entity to penalise. Surely, a waste of public money.”

I can understand the frustration, but think that a conviction, whatever the fine, gives next of kin better leverage to get compensation from insurers and, possibly, the directors.

Davidd
Davidd
11 years ago

With a headline like this I would have expected your report to include the reasoning behind the peppercorn fine. Is it because the firm are now in administration or because there was some fault on behalf of the banksman in addition to the company’s obvious failings? If the amount didn’t matter why didn’t the court apply a more appropriate figure to the value of this human life?

Elloboda
Elloboda
11 years ago

being a folk lift truck driver of old im looking at the picture with complete amazment. i cannot not beleave the folk lift folks a together when you have metal on metal when clearly there is a big enough gap to open the folks wider to stop a tip. and not to tell the engineer who,s trained in lifting is just wrong.

Ken
Ken
11 years ago

Why, in cases like this, does the HSE not pursue an individual for prosecution? It s difficult to believe that avenue would not be available if someone has been told to do something that causes a fatality. This report does little more that act as a training exercise of how to avoid a fine in court.

Ken
Ken
11 years ago

HASWA limits the right to civil action for damage caused by a breach (S47), but there is also common law duty of care in an employer/employee relationship, a tort. The same is true of employers and public. That may not be well described but the principal is there.

If there is a breach of the duty of care, possibly evidenced by a conviction under HASWA, the breach of the duty of care will be actionable under common law.

Martin
Martin
11 years ago

As usual the ‘company’ had taken over SIX WEEKS earlier and failed to carry out a general H & S audit. Not nearly good enough is it? It should have been their first priority. Its all very well carrying an audit out after the event but its way too late. How many reports do we see now with zero preventative action being taken to minimise risks. It is all reactive and these companies treat their employees as disposable commodities. ‘Sorry we will try harder’ just does not cut it. This is shocking!!

Phillip
Phillip
11 years ago

Fine of £1, surely a mistake?

Ray
Ray
11 years ago

The real mistake is allowing the directors off scott free through the liquidation of the company.

I really cannot see why the HSE pursue with the prosecution when there is no entity to penalise. Surely, a waste of public money.

Safeteenet
Safeteenet
11 years ago

That is currently true Colin BUT, in an amendment currently being taken through the law making system, and ‘hidden’ in what nis not obviously H&S law, is the proposal to repeal the ‘breach of statutory duty’ basis for a civil claim and require proof of negligence Apparently ignoring the law is no longer considered negligent behaviour. Of course the rich, or Trades Union members, will still be able to access civil law remedies but not the less well off as there is no Legal Aid to cover a claim