August 13, 2012A worker suffered multiple bone fractures when he fell from a canopy at a school in Shropshire.
RG Stones (Buildings) Ltd was contracted to replace a canopy between two temporary classroom buildings at Lakelands School, in Ellesmere.
On 8 August 2011, William Phillips was standing on the canopy with two colleagues. They were replacing the existing canopy with a polycarbonate version. Most of the original canopy panels had been removed, and the workers were standing on three of the remaining panels.
Mr Phillips accidently stepped off one of the sheets and fell three metres between the timber, and landed on the concrete floor. He suffered fractures to his back, breastbone, six ribs and his right wrist. He has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.
The HSE’s investigation found that no edge protection had been installed to prevent a fall. The company had placed two soft landing bags on the floor, but neither was positioned in the area where the work was being carried out. The three workers had also not been trained in how to use soft landing systems.
HSE inspector Guy Dale said: “This incident was entirely preventable. The company had obviously appreciated the risks of a fall, as shown by the provision of the landing bags, but it’s a shame they didn’t think to put them under the area where they were most needed.
“Work at height is a high-risk activity and needs to be properly planned. Had that happened, a man would not have been left with debilitating injuries.”
RG Stones appeared at Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court on 10 August and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £6500 and ordered to pay £3105 in costs.
In mitigation, the company said it completed the work after installing a crash deck. It has also sent workers on a training course for soft landing systems. It had no previous convictions and entered an early guilty plea.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nice to see the hierarchy of control for WAH adopted after the incident.
Shame the HSE failed to mention it though, must have been an oversight?
The use of air and bean bags is often inappropriately used and rarely mitigates distance and consequences as per WAH requirement.
I hope the crash deck was designed?
Although why you would need a CRASH deck is debatable? I would have thought a working platform would surfice.
They appear to have gone from one extreme to another?
Mick,
Wrong on so many levels: is a nice touch, have you copy righted that slogan?
The abject failure to comply with WAH warranted a conviction for numerous WAH failures, but the deferment to the HSW Act is all to often applied for ease of conviction.
Given that WAH results in multiple injuries and fatalities anuually, would examples of convictions not possibly raise awareness to everyones benefit?
Missed oppurtunity I think, raising awareness is a key element of prevention?
I am in agreement with you that regulations are worthless unless they are enforced, the use of Section 2 & 3 of HSW Act reduces the complicity of offences involving muliple failure.
However the legal system relies on corroboarating evidence, and this is often more forthcoming if those giving evidence are unlikely themselves to be persued.
I have seen this in action and confess that I dissaprove.
Its a catch 22 scenario, but often the wrong result is concluded in my opinion?
Mick,
beware the politics of envy, we should be thankfull that we have freedom of speach that allows us to make such comments.
Well, unless you work for the government who impose censorship all over the place?
But that`s another thread????
Wrong on so many levels:
Contractor’s controls inappropriate, HSE miss simple alternative means of controlling the risks and the fine is a joke for such a serious injury, which could have been very simply avoided. (and surely the WAH regs were breached, as well as the HASWA? Why not do them under the regs?)
I also note that it has nothing to do with which political party is in power, until we get the usual comments I suspect 😉
Bob, dammit I missed that one, it wasn’t even intentional 🙂
I think you are spot on, using the regs for prosecutions has to be sensible – otherwise what are they for? A toothless trigger for an ACOP or guidance note?
Regs should be better used in court, otherwise they become a potential object of ridicule and media tool for those who still believe H&S is OTT.
(nice to see I was correct regarding the prediction of a political comment….)
My personal view is that soft landing is inappropriate in most cases, more labour intensive than a crash deck and unless conditions are perfect don’t fit well. Cost differences between soft landing an crash deck or bircage scaffolds are minimal in any case.
A shame none of our MPs’ fall from their pedestals with the same effects, maybe they would recognise H & S is not a waste of time and effort.