When the client’s kindness exposed her and her grandson to the contractor’s incompetence
What happened?
A self-employed roofer, had been contracted to felt a flat roof and was using bitumen that he melted at ground level before it was transported up a ladder.
He and a colleague had already climbed the ladder several times without incident, but it slipped just as a grandmother, with her grandson in her arms, approached the workers to ask if they wanted a cup of tea. The bucket fell spilling bitumen directly on top of them.
The grandmother and her 21 month-old grandson were splashed and scalded by the hot bitumen. They both sustained serious burns requiring extensive hospital treatment. The grandmother required skin grafts to her hands and one foot. She also received burns to her face and head. Her young grandson received burns to his chest, forehead, face, lips and under his right arm.
The HSE’s investigation found that the ladder had not been secured to prevent a slip. It was also in a poor condition, with missing or badly worn rubber feet. Insufficient measures were taken to prevent the slip and spill, and that it was a wholly unnecessary incident.
After the hearing, the HSE Inspector said: “Extreme caution must be taken at all times when working with bitumen because it can be incredibly harmful. The roofer didn’t take extreme care. He was using a ladder with clearly visible defects that wasn’t properly secured, and they sustained horrific burns as a result. The ladder issues aside, the incident could also have been avoided had they been told to stay at a safe distance.”
Legal Outcome
The self-employed roofer was fined £1,335 and ordered to pay a further £1,100 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
What can we learn from what happened?
The HSE prosecuted the roofer under HSWA 1974, but it is worth noting that the Work at Height Regulations 2005 cover not just the risk of people falling from height, but also the risks associated with items being dropped from height.
When considering if a hazard can be eliminated, the Regs ask whether an item really needs to be taken up a ladder (or whatever means). In this case, the bitumen clearly needed to be at height because that was the whole purpose of the job, but having recognised that, the risks associated not just with the weight of the load, but also the hazardous nature of the load (hot, melted) need to be managed extremely carefully. And as stated, if there is any risk whatsoever of the load being spilled then the next control is to make sure nobody is going to get hit on the ground. This was a very nasty accident for the grandmother and grandson (and distressing for the mum and dad), and was totally avoidable.
Source of Information
SHP Online