Fell down stairs at work

MissSarah1972

p1nklady wrote: »

I'm fine at the moment but once the shock has gone tomorrow morning i'm sure I will be in a bit of pain.



The fact that there was a stack of pallets at the bottom of the stairs where I hit my head

If you had seen the pallets at the bottom of the stairs before hand why did you not report them? All stairs and stair wells must be kept clear at all times and all staff are responsible for H&S and notifiying the person in charge at the workplace of these hazzards

Hmm71

mynameistallulah wrote: »

I was going to suggest that the OP gets a grip also!

OP, you had an accident, these things happen. If you had an accident in your home, perhaps because someone had left something at the bottom of the stairs, what would you do? My advice is to get an early night, take a few painkillers if you are feeling a bit sore in the morning, and continue with life as before ... :A

Well said, about ten years ago my husband was working in a pub, he tripped in the cellar and broke his hip on the edge of a beer barrel. He didn't sue his employer as he knew it wasn't anyone's fault, it just happened. His ankle gave way and he fell in the wrong place. I told him it was a bit of a drastic way to get time off work

OP, you should have gathered the straps up before you went downstairs so they weren't dangling and surely you could have seen the pallets at the bottom of the stairs? Why hadn't you moved them or reported them before this incident? And wiped your shoes when you came in from the rain? As others have said Health and Safety is everyone's responsibility, not just your employer's.

BlueAngelCV

Legally whether or not you reported the issue with the pallets isn't hugely relevant to whether or not you can bring a claim against your employers. I would go to contributory negligence (ie a reduction in what you would be paid) but wouldn't stop them from being liable.

HOWEVER, to succeed in a claim you would have to show that the accident was caused by something they did wrong. From what you have said it wasn't, you just fell. Yes you may have knocked the pallets on your way down but you could just have easily have knocked yourself on the wall and likely would have done if the pallets hadn't been there.

Whether you should attend work obviously depends on whether you are well enough.

Whether you should take this further? You should make sure they fill in an accident report form but if you are asking whether you should bring a claim then no, you have no grounds to do so.

withabix

The employer's duty of care is greater than the employee's. That is laid down in HASAWA1974.

Was there a method statement and risk assessment in place for carrying the rucksack on the stairs? This is the employer's responsibility.

Have you been briefed on this? Can the employer prove this with a document signed by you?

Was the rucksack fit for purpose? Has it been maintained? This is the employer's responsibility. (PUWER)

Has a Manual Handling Assessment being carried out? (Manual Handling Operations Regs)

Are the stair treads suitable? Are they non-slip? This is the employer's responsibility.

Are the pallets supposed to be stacked there? Does the risk assessment refer to those pallets being there? This is the employer's responsibility.

Was the Accident Book completed? This is the employer's responsibility. (Social Security [Claims and Payments] Regulations 1979)

etc

dickydonkin

withabix wrote: »

The employer's duty of care is greater than the employee's. That is laid down in HASAWA1972.

It is actually the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 - and nowhere does it state that the employers duty of care is GREATER than the employees. Section 2 does identify employers requirements in more detail, but section 7 and 8 refers to employees requirements under the act - albeit without the detail of section 2 - but the duty of care is equal nonetheless, even though the employer will require more resources to comply.

Was there a method statement and risk assessment in place for carrying the rucksack on the stairs? This is the employer's responsibility.

Do you expect the employer to have a specific risk assessment and safe system of work for EVERY single task the employee carries out during the course of the day? Of course not - unless there are high risk duties, many tasks can be covered in a generic assessment. Think about every task you do at work and just imagine the burden of all the documentation, time and effort that would be involved.

Have you been briefed on this? Can the employer prove this with a document signed by you?

Was the rucksack fit for purpose? Has it been maintained? This is the employer's responsibility. (PUWER)

It is also the employees responsibility to check any 'work equipment' prior to use - and ensure that things like trailing straps will not cause a tripping hazard.

Has a Manual Handling Assessment being carried out? (Manual Handling Operations Regs)

Do you expect the employer to carry out a manual handling assessment for every handling task? And again, unless there is a high risk handling activity, a manual handling awareness briefing and generic assessment would normally be sufficient.

Are the stair treads suitable? Are they non-slip? This is the employer's responsibility.

And it is also the employees duty to report any defects - if the employer is not aware of any problems - they won't be rectified.

Are the pallets supposed to be stacked there? Does the risk assessment refer to those pallets being there? This is the employer's responsibility.

As I alluded to earlier, the pallets stacked at the bottom of the stairs was not ideal - however, they were not a contributory factor in the cause of the accident.

Was the Accident Book completed? This is the employer's responsibility. (Social Security [Claims and Payments] Regulations 1979)
etc

It is the employers responsibility to provide an accident book or suitable means of recording an accident - surely it is the employees duty to make sure it is filled in?

We are discussing someones injury caused by a trip on some stairs seemingly caused by the OP's carelessness by not ensuring that some straps were secured on a rucksack - not an explosion in a petro-chemical plant!

Risk assessments are very important and from a risk assessment, a safe system of work should be adopted - but to achieve a specific assessment for EVERY single task we all do at work every day is just unrealistic.

Yes - identify the most hazardous of operations, but the controls (precautions) that are put in place must be proportionate to the risks in the workplace. If you over burden your staff with risk assessments and other forms of safety documentation, they will likely ignore or forget the messages you are trying to instil.

By looking at the workplace, you can cover most of the tasks in a generic risk assessment which is not as cumbersome as undertaking risk assessments for every task - although higher risk activities such as working at height should have a specific risk assessment.

Just KEEP IT SIMPLE.

withabix

dickydonkin wrote: »

Just KEEP IT SIMPLE.

Keeping it simple also has to keep it legally compliant.

ALL of your comments in red ignore this requirement.

You have a poor grasp of the legal obligations on an employer.

I sincerely hope you don't work in health & safety.

Sambucus_Nigra

withabix wrote: »

Keeping it simple also has to keep it legally compliant.

Could you please post links to underpin your previous comment: 'The employer's duty of care is greater than the employee's. That is laid down in HASAWA1972'

Thanks.

dickydonkin

withabix wrote: »

Keeping it simple also has to keep it legally compliant.

ALL of your comments in red ignore this requirement.

You have a poor grasp of the legal obligations on an employer.

I sincerely hope you don't work in health & safety.

I am a Health & Safety Advisor actually - and coming from someone who can't even correctly name the legislation that underpins all health and safey regulations and seems incapable of interpreting it, I find your comments a bit rich.

If you look back at my post, one of the key comments was that control measures have to be proportionate to the risks.

Your post regarding the OP's situation mentioned risk assessments, method statements etc. for carrying a bag down a set of stairs - a bag that should conform to the PUWER regulations......for goodness sake!

So if the OP had to carry a box down the stairs as opposed to a bag - are you suggesting that this task should also have a seperate risk assessment and method statement? That is ridiculous.

You stated that I have a 'poor grasp of the legal obligations of an employer'. Let me tell you that the last thing an employer wants is to be over burdened with having to carry out a risk assessment for every single task in his workplace - it is this thinking that gives health and safety a bad name.

I can assure you that that it is so easy to be legally compliant by 'keeping it simple' and without having to quote regulations that don't mean a thing to the majority of people.

Of course where higher risk activities are involved, such as working with chemicals, hot working, confined spaces, work at height etc - these would certainly need planning, specific risk assesments, a safe system of work (method statement) and with some of those activities, a permit to work system would need to be implemented.

However, for the majority of people who work in offices, education, low risk production etc - it is easy to comply with legislation and keep your risk assessments and control measures proportionate to the risk.

What you also have to consider as well (as I'm sure you know) is your end user and their ability to interpret and use safety documentation - I didn't intend to be derogatory with that comment by the way.

I am in the process of completing a safety manual for the housekeeping and maintenance departments for a higher education establishment. Before I commenced the task, it was requested that it needed to be simple and user friendly.

That is what I did and there is not one mention of legislation. There was no need to - just let me worry about compliance, but ensure that the information is used, easily conveyed and is able to be easily digested by the end user.

If you can show me anything that is factually incorrect in my earlier post (written in red), I would be grateful so you will be able to enhance my knowledge of safety in the workplace.

Googlewhacker

withabix wrote: »

Keeping it simple also has to keep it legally compliant.

ALL of your comments in red ignore this requirement.

You have a poor grasp of the legal obligations on an employer.

I sincerely hope you don't work in health & safety.

LOL with the greatest of respect, Dickydonkin knows what he is on about.

I suggest you read and learn...

BobQ

dickydonkin wrote: »

I am a Health & Safety Advisor actually - .........

As you say an employer does have a duty of care and the employee has a responsibility to behave responsibly.

There is a requirement for an employer to consider all risks that an employee may reasonably encounter in the workplace. The facts in this case seem a little vague, but a responsible employer should have reviewed the risks involved and produced a risk assessment for the OP's workplace that defined the risks involved. We do not seem to be clear whether this was in fact done.

If the workplace risk assessment (which seems from the OP to be a food processing environment) did not consider the manual handling issues, the employer may be vulnerable to a claim. We do not know if it did or did not.

Let me tell you that the last thing an employer wants is to be over burdened with having to carry out a risk assessment for every single task in his workplace - it is this thinking that gives health and safety a bad name.

I agree with you on this matter although not all employers do their assessments thoroghly.

However, for the majority of people who work in offices, education, low risk production etc - it is easy to comply with legislation and keep your risk assessments and control measures proportionate to the risk.

True but we cannot possibly say that this is a low risk environment or whether the employee was properly trained to do the tasks he was asked to undertake. If his job included carrying around boxes, rucksacks, particularly while negotiating difficult/steep stairs, manual handling training should have been provided. If it was and and he ignored the advice given then the employer could reasonably argue it had taken all reasonable steps.