When it should not be assumed that a product used widely in buildings will always be suitable when children do what children do
What happened?
A children’s party was going on in a ten-pin bowling facility in a leisure centre. The children were understandably excited, and were having a good time. Having a good time to some children means throwing things in the air, such as a toy or ball. The party was supervised.
The ceiling in the ten-pin was constructed using square-shaped light diffusers that loosely sat in metal supports around the edge for easy access to the light fitting. The diffusers were the kind you would see in thousands and thousands of public buildings. When dislodged from their supports, however, a diffuser can fall to the ground. Diffusers come in different designs, but the ones in question had metal strips, and have very sharp corners.
At the party, an object was thrown in the air, a diffuser was dislodged and fell to the ground, missing any children. It was a near miss.
The leisure centre management raised the near miss with various interested parties, including the company responsible for the design and installation of the facility. They confirmed the suitability of the diffusers, and asked ROSPA for their view which was that no form of access should be permitted to the lights (including objects), adding that this could be achieved through strict supervision or through a physical barrier such as netting or a cage.
While in correspondence, there was one additional near miss in a junior gym, when an exercise ball was thrown into the air. And there was also an accident, again in the ten-pin, when a shoe was kicked into the air. This time the diffuser fell and struck a girl in the face, causing a deep cut to her cheek, narrowly missing her eye. Three such incidents in close succession.
Legal Outcome
This went nowhere legally, and it was never intended that it would. The designers understandably defended their choice of diffuser, saying it was widely used in all sorts of settings, but to maintain the goodwill they offered to pay for half of the necessary actions to make the fittings safe. A good outcome, and everyone worked together.
What can we learn from what happened?
There was a solution that took a bit of time but not too much money, and solved the problem. The leisure attached ties to join each of the diffusers to their supports, so if they were dislodged then they would drop but not fall to the floor.
The main learning point here is that the assessment of risk can be very specific to the nature of use of any given space. These diffusers were sharp, so were therefore hazardous, but would clearly not create a risk in, let’s say, an office environment (except maybe during a Christmas party!). But with children doing what children do (throwing toys or kicking off shoes, very foreseeable), the severity is then combined with a greater likelihood, so the risk becomes very real.
Source of Information
Personal involvement by author.