When surely it was reasonable foreseeable, and the absence of a previous accident was a matter of luck
What happened?
A 72 year-old man was visiting Warwick Castle with his partner and her family in December 2007. Around 4.30pm he left the court yard and walked over the Bear and Clarence Bridge. The parapet wall on either side of the bridge was less than 40cm high, and the moat over 4 metres deep.
He seems to have stumbled or tripped, and fell over the parapet wall into the dry moat below. He suffered head injuries, but some reports suggest he died from a heart attack.
Merlin Entertainments, who operate Warwick Castle, were prosecuted. In their defence, they argued that there was no material or foreseeable risk for people crossing the bridge under normal conditions: They said: Between 1978 and 2015 (37 years) more than 20 million people had visited the castle without a single reported accident or near miss on the bridge.
According to the Entertainment Licence, barriers were only required to be placed (temporarily) when there were events which could result in more than 2,200 people in the castle courtyard. Guidance from Managing Visitor Safety in the Countryside recognised that erecting barriers might be undesirable for scheduled monuments and listed buildings.
While the bridge had been identified as a hazard in 2003, the risk of injury was described as ‘remote’ with a figure of 1 in 4 million assigned. How this ‘likelihood’ was calculated is not known.
Prosecutors said the height of the parapet walls (40cm) and the depth of the drop (over 4 m) made this accident foreseeable.
They added that practicable actions had not been taken: A site-specific risk assessment had never taken place for the bridge (until after the accident), warning signs could have been provided, and the 2003 report had raised a question over whether side barriers were required for the bridge during normal opening times, and there was no evidence this had been considered.
Legal Outcome
Warwick Castle were found guilty under two charges: Health and Safety at Work Act S3(1), and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 5, for failing to act on the results of a risk assessment.
They were fined £300,000 and £50,000 respectively and costs of £145,000. There was an appeal, but Merlin’s case was dismissed.
What can we learn from what happened?
Temporary barriers were erected immediately after the accident, and Merlin co-operated fully, committing to erected a permanent barrier.
Given the height of the parapet, the depth of the drop, and the volume of visitors who would cross the bridge, it is a surprise that there had not been an accident or even a near miss. Surely it was reasonable foreseeable, and the absence of a previous accident is a matter of luck.
The way heritage sites of historical interest manage their safety is influenced by their role of providing access to the public while respecting as much as possible their original condition. This will have been taken into account during the case, but nevertheless such a risk should have been managed better.
Source of Information
Bridget Leathley – from her ‘The Safer Choice’ website
SHP Online