A worker died after being struck by a piece of metal that flew off a strimmer at high speed, while he was clearing undergrowth at a construction site in Barrow-in-Furness.
ThreeShires Ltd, which specialises in ecology and forestry work, was contracted to remove overgrown vegetation during the building of Waterfront Business Park. The firm sub-contracted Tony Robinson, 37, to help carry out the work.
On 8 February 2010, Mr Robinson was using a chainsaw to cut back bushes, while another worker was operating a petrol strimmer on a nearby bank. A chain-link attachment had been added to the strimmer so it could be used for heavy-duty work.
The chain was spinning at approximately 300mph when one of the links broke and flew off the machine. It struck Mr Robinson in the back of the neck and he died at the scene from his injuries.
The HSE’s investigation found that ThreeShires had failed to properly consider the risks of using the attachment, or the dangers of allowing Mr Robinson to work close to where it was being operated. The HSE issued a safety alert following the incident, warning of the serious dangers posed by using the strimmer attachment, which was known as a Brogio Flail Head.
A Prohibition Notice was issued to Lamberhurst Engineering Ltd, the sole importer of the attachment in the UK, which resulted in a nationwide ban on the sale or supply of the product. The attachment has now also been banned across Europe, after the HSE alerted the European Commission to the issue.
HSE inspector Allen Shute explained that Mr Robinson’s death was needless and easily avoidable. He said: “The chances of him being struck by a piece of metal when the chain became detached were increased by the fact that the strimmer was being operated nearby, on a bank, above where he was working.
“The company should have properly considered the risks of using a heavy-duty piece of equipment before it allowed the work to take place. If it had, then Mr Robinson’s death could have been avoided.”
ThreeShires appeared at Barrow Crown Court on 12 March and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 in costs.
Following the hearing the company released a statement, which said: “The directors of ThreeShires express their deepest sympathy to Mr Robinson’s family.
“The prosecution rightly accepted that there was no causal connection between the company’s limited breaches and the tragic loss of life and that the company was and is run by well-motivated individuals, who aim to secure safe outcomes on all of their activities.”
But Mr Robinson’s widow, Jenna, told the North West Evening Mail that she was disgusted at the company’s arlier failure to offer its sympathy for her husband’s death. She said: “It should never have happened. No matter how big or small the fine was, it will not bring Tony back. But the actual fine given out today was very low.
“ThreeShires has not once sent a card, any sympathy or any condolences, apart from today, when my dad was approached in the men’s toilets to pass on their condolences.
“If they were a family company, like they say they are, they would have had a bit more remorse towards me. I would have appreciated a card, or a visit just to pass on their condolences. I find it disgusting.”
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
Was it forseeable that the chain link would fly off, maybe not. Was it reasonably forseeable that a piece of debris such as a stone would fly as a result of the operation of this machine-absolutely
Typical quote from a guilty party. Sounds like they are only saying sorry to reduce the sentence. The widow’s comments say it all.
I find it difficult to see the “reasonable foreseeability” of this incident? If the correct PPE was being used and the equipment would appear to have been within the law (before the HSE ban), doesn’t reasonably practicable apply here. It’s simplistic for the HSE to say “easily avoidable” after the event, but how many H&S professionals would have identified the risk? To me, the small fine reflects the judges opinion that it was an incident which was difficult to plan for and risk assess.
Even with no flesh showing, with some PPE as some have quoted what about upper torso and midriff areas exposed, a t shirt is hardly protection on a summers day.
The common sense solution must be – recorded regular inspection of equipment, otherwise its full hockey goalkeeper equipment?
Which is surely ridiculous
Regrettably very forseeable. We do this work and stones and chain flying are common. Our standard instruction is no-one within 20m or strimmer stops. PPE is chainsaw wellies/legings. Hard hat with rear neck guard and full face chaisaw visor, gauntlets etc. i.e. no visible flesh. (Our worst problem is parked cars where we have accidentally broken a few windows – we pre-warn, we cone and try to move them but there are always a few who still park on cones)
Any part flying of at that speed will travel approximately 100 feet a second so even 29metres doesnt cut it. Good to see the use of the chains has been banned .
Surely these machines are ‘road tested ‘ at point of manufacture where every stringent test is applied to see what limits the machine can operate to.
It’s aso incumbent on the user/ owner to regularly service and examine these machines and ensure there are no faults or weaknesses I wonder how stringent tests were both at the point of assembly and at regular service intervals.
More to the point I too think it’s disgusting that condolences to this mans grieving family were offered in a WC….
In grounds maintenance it wasn’t unheard of for sections of strimmer chain to break off due to the speed and destructive nature of the task, or due to object strike such as hidden rocks and stones. Also a risk of the hidden objects becoming airborne themselves and striking someone. Proximity of the strimmer op to other workers is crucial. I stand to be corrected on this one, but think most use nylon cord now , although it isn’t as aggressive in its performance.
I agree, however without the particulars of the case it is hard to judge.
Should you foresee that the equipment will break and then not have anyone nearby? Where do you stop with the safety cordone? An inch across piece of metal at 300mph when launched poses a risk to a greater area than just the guy working next to the machine.
I see this as a pure accident, not some “catalogue of failures leads to X” type which usually make up the news re: construction accidents.
Surely the greater fault in this case lies with the design of the strimmer attachment? A chain rotating at 300mph is only as good as the weakest link. It would appear to me as being inherently risky. A heavy object such as a steel chain rotating at this speed is likely to break at some stage. I for one would not want to operate such a machine. No hand portable guard would stop an object with this velocity.
re the “reasonably foreseeable “debate:-
1) it is an aftermarket accessory, not approved by the maker-a heavy duty accessory for a lightweight machine-failure not “if” but “when”
2) nearest similar type of equipment, a rotary flail used as an implement on an agricultural tractor, the flails are AT ALL TIMES enclosed by a heavy gauge steel hood, so in the event of failure, either they hit the hood or the ground, no way failure could lead to injury . Risk assessment deficient (if ever done)
I agree with the comment post ed about reasonable foreseeability. Its always easy after an event to say it should have been seen (with respect to the individual and his family) The HSE inspector who said this would no doubt – not have been able to foresee, nor would any reasonable man!
A LOT OF THESE TYPES OF JOBS ARE NOT RISK ASSESSEDOR NOT REVIEWED ON A REGULAR BASIS. If THE CORRECT TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED ALONG SIDE THE EQUIPMENT BIENG INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. Under the PUWER REGS SURELY THIS EQUIPMENT WOULD HAVE COME OUT AS A HIGH RISK, WITH SPECIALIST ADVICE ON HANDLING.