When a fatal accident leads to the banning of the equipment that was the cause of the fatality
What happened?
An ecology and forestry specialist was contracted to remove overgrown vegetation on a construction site. They sub-contracted a man to carry out the work.
The man was using a chainsaw to cut back bushes, while another worker was operating a petrol strimmer on a nearby bank. A chain-link attachment had been added to the strimmer so it could be used for heavy-duty work. The attachment which adds more momentum and force to the strimmer to make it more effective was spinning at approximately 300mph when one of the links broke and flew off the machine. It struck the man in the back of the neck and he died at the scene from his injuries.
The HSE’s investigation found that the ecology and forestry specialists had failed to properly consider the risks of using the attachment, or the dangers of allowing the man to work close to where it was being operated.
A Prohibition Notice was issued to the sole importer of the attachment in the UK, which resulted in a nationwide ban on the sale or supply of the product. The attachment has now also been banned across Europe, after the HSE alerted the European Commission to the issue.
Legal Outcome
The ecology and forestry pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 in costs.
What can we learn from what happened?
It is not known whether the use of the attachment was a common practice for this type of work, or whether there was an element of improvisation. Either way, the three risk factors – the potential for the attachment to come loose when rotating at speed, the weight of the attachment, and the proximity of the man who sadly died – should have been considered and control measures implemented, such as PPE and the creation of distance to manage the exposure to the hazard.
As stated, the HSE issued a Prohibition Notice, interestingly to the importer of the product, which illustrates the potential breadth of use this enforcement instrument. And a safety alert was published by the HSE, an example of how the HSE share and distribute information about major faults that could lead to serious or fatal injury where remedial action is required. Having made this information publicly available, the expectation is that the advice is followed, and failure to do so would badly compromise any defence in law.
Another aspect of this case is that it was reported that the family of the deceased was very critical of the absence of remorse or offer of condolences on the part of the responsible company, which as always is sad to hear.
Source of Information
SHP In-Court