An eight-year-old boy suffered serious internal injuries when a stack of roof trusses fell on him while he was playing on an unsecured construction site.
The incident happened on 28 April 2009 on the site at Meadowbrook, Linwood, near Paisley. BDW Trading Ltd was constructing a number of residential properties at the site, some of which had been completed and had people living in them.
The young boy lived in one of the new houses and was playing with some friends. They accessed a part of the site where BDW Trading Ltd was storing a number of timber roof trusses out in the open, which were intended for use on the remaining unfinished properties. The storage area was located near the entrance to the completed properties, and it was only protected by a temporary fence on one side, which was adjacent to a pavement.
The children stepped off the path and walked around the fence and began playing in the storage area. While they were playing, one of the tied bundles of trusses was disturbed and fell on top of the boy. Two of his neighbours, who lived next to the storage area, heard the children crying and rushed over to try to help him. They managed to lever the roof trusses off him, allowing him to escape.
One of the neighbours drove the boy home, and his father immediately took him to hospital, where he spent eight days receiving treatment for serious injuries to his liver and abdomen. He subsequently developed a number of anxiety-related symptoms, which included nightmares and poor concentration.
The child’s father contacted the HSE two days after the incident, as BDW Trading was unaware that it had happened. He submitted photos of the collapsed trusses, one of which is pictured above.
The HSE visited the site on the day it was notified and issued an Improvement Notice, which required the company to improve the standard of fencing to prevent unauthorised access to the storage area.
HSE inspector Gerry McCulloch told SHP that not only had the company failed to install proper fencing but the trusses had not been adequately secured to prevent them from overturning. He explained that the trusses should either have been supported by a temporary frame, or they could have been laid flat on the ground.
Inspector McCulloch said: “BDW Trading knew that families were living right next to the storage area of the construction site and, as such, the safety of children should have been a primary consideration.
“If the company had taken the straightforward precaution of fencing off the construction site, the children would not have been able to get into the area, and this young lad would not have received potentially life-threatening injuries.”
BDW Trading appeared at Paisley Sheriff’s Court on 29 November and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £20,000. No costs are awarded in Scotland.
In mitigation, the company said it had had no previous action against it and had fully cooperated with the investigation. On the day of the HSE’s visit it ordered temporary fencing and quickly installed this around the storage area so the only way to gain access was through a locked gate.
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.
if anyone is to blame everyone from the person who opened the site to let the load in the driver for not following the corrected proceduer of unloading heavy goods the site manager for not asking the question of is that what you call a protecting fence around the site to the worker other seeing the load say to the driver driver surley your not going to leave that load like that. a 5 secound scan of the area tells me there is children near by…. no thought not.
So why was the child playing on the site to begin with? I am a firm believer that parents need to be controlling their kids better and make them well aware of risks, for example, why didn’t the parents tell the kids not to play in there? Why did the parents not report it immediately. We were always told of dangers as children, and we listened! However, the construction company are at fault for not putting correct signage, security etc around the site and are in breach of CDM regs etc.
Did the HSE check the pre construction information provided by the CDM-C to see if the CDM-C had alerted the contractor to the possibility of children being close to the construction site? Also was the CDM-C told that the site was to be handed over in phases to the new owners did the contractor tell the new owners to keep children away from incomplete houses?
I have to agree Kellee, why was the boy allowed to be unsupervised, the parents obviously knew the site was there and should have done more to prevent the child getting in. I agree the site is at fault and definately should have had secure fencing and locks knowing children were so close and that they are by nature adventureous.