Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
February 1, 2011

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

Fatality after defective telehandler re-employed

A recycling firm has been fined £200,000 after one of its employees allowed a faulty telehandler to be used during a fatal lifting operation.

Ling Metals Ltd was contracted to spread 30 tonnes of rubber crumb, which was being used to lay a new horse-riding surface at Brambles Stables in Ramsgate, Kent. On 19 March 2007, the company fitted a loading bucket to a telehandler and began transporting the rubber across the site.

The telehandler driver dropped the load over a riding-ring fence and two of his colleagues began spreading the rubber with brushes. The machine was fitted with a safe-loading indicator, which signals if the vehicle is nearing its safe-load limit. But the indicator had not been properly calibrated and was therefore inoperative at the time.

The machine had a safe-load limit of 1.5 tonnes but no account had been taken of the weight of the loading bucket, which had been attached to the vehicle.  The bucket weighed 450 kilos and each load weighed around one tonne, but this information was not made known to the driver.

In order to tip the rubber over the fence, the driver fully extended the vehicle’s boom but did not employ the machine’s hydraulic stabilisers, causing it to overbalance and tip forwards. At the same moment Darren Baker, who was one of the men spreading the rubber, walked across the path of the boom and was struck in the head by the loading bucket. He died in hospital two days later from his injuries.

The HSE was informed of the incident under RIDDOR on the same day as the incident, but was initially told there were only minor injuries, so it did not send an emergency response team to the site immediately. A few days later it was notified about the fatality and an inspector was immediately sent to the scene. On arrival he found the job had been completed using the faulty machine.

HSE inspector John Underwood discovered the machine’s previous safety certificate (called a Certificate of Thorough Examination) had expired prior to the incident. Although an engineer had visited on two separate occasions to inspect and repair the telehandler, he had been unable to rectify the defects, and instructed that the machine remain out of service until he was able to complete his examination. But a manager at Ling Metals mistakenly thought that the machine’s faults didn’t constitute a failure of the examination, and allowed the vehicle to be used at the stables.

Inspector Underwood said: “I would like to remind owners and operators of machines fitted with older-style safe load indicators that these need checking and recalibrating on a regular basis, as some older machines do not tell the operator when they have decalibrated.

“It is vital that the owner and operator have a robust procedure to ensure workers know how to correctly use the machine; how to recognise when it may be going out of calibration; and what to do about it. Each machine should be checked by plant fitters and maintained in line with the manufacturer’s recommendations.”

Ling Metals appeared at Canterbury Crown Court on 28 January and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974, and reg. 7(c) and 10(3) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulation 1998, for failing to identify the characteristics of lifting accessories to ensure their safe use, and for allowing faulty equipment to be used. It also pleaded guilty to a further charge of breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, in relation to finishing the job using the same machine. In addition to the fine it was ordered to pay £11,384 towards costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it took the machine out of service as soon as the HSE began its investigation and subsequently sold the machine once it gained a new safety certificate. The company also said it has tightened procedures to ensure that all machines pass examinations before they are used, and it also now ensures that operators are given proper information about load limits for each job. All operators have also been sent on a refresher training course to ensure they are familiar with safety procedures.

After the hearing, inspector Underwood added: “This was a wholly avoidable incident, which led to unnecessary loss of life. I hope this fine will be an example to those involved in the use of telehandlers that machine maintenance is critical to enable safe operation.”

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

The company deserved to be fine, however the headline here misrepresents the situation. The fault on the telehandler was not the only factor in the accident. The fact that it was a known fault does indicate the overall attitude to safety was not as it should have been and the manager should have been prosecuted, however the failure to deploy the stabilisers is 100% down to the driver.

I’m disappointed that the sofest option of pursuing only the employer was taken

Jmcg
Jmcg
11 years ago

The machine driver should have been prosecuted also.

A charge of gross negligence manslaughter should have been levied against him.

Johndgraham
Johndgraham
11 years ago

Depending on whether this has been reported correctly,. there are a number of anomalies in the report. As the t/handler is shown with a bucket then at the time it was strictly a PUWER machine but even if it did have forks attached some of the time so it would be under LOLER why was Reg 7(c) used in the prosecution as that is for marking of lifting accessories (tackle) so not applicable here. A bucket is not a lifting accessory unless the HSE are moving the goalposts.

Nickgray9956
Nickgray9956
11 years ago

Any half way decent investigation into the of the incident should have told the owners and operator why this had happened yet they still went ahead and used the telehandler after the injured party was taken to hospital. I suspect if the IP had recovered they still would have carried on in blissful ignorance. Cases like this should carry compulsory training and tests of competence for both the managers and operators before they are allowed to use the machinery in question.

Ray
Ray
11 years ago

Sad and unnecessary loss of life. However, another opportunity has been missed by the authorities. The manager who authorised the use of the telehandler despite knowing it failed the Certificate of Thorough Examination should have been held to account and prosecuted. Until individuals accept responsibility for health and safety, these types of incidents will keep occurring.

Topics: