Case study: Sky Scaffolding (Midlands) Ltd 2009
Relevance of this case
Although a minor case in the annals of health and safety law, this case illustrates for a well understood hazard the problem of not including all of the relevant interested parties in a risk assessment.
Events on the day
At 7.30am on 18 May 2008, three workers from Sky Scaffolding (Midlands) Ltd started erecting scaffolding on the pavement outside a public house in Coventry City Centre. The pavement was not closed or restricted. The assumption was that the pavement wouldn’t be too busy, although the case report doesn’t make it clear whether this assumption was documented in the risk assessment.
The scaffolders were still working at 9.20am, and they had the sense to realise that the pavements were too busy to continue safely. They started to secure materials to the upper level of scaffolding to make it safe to leave. Two scaffolders were working about 5 metres above the ground, while a third worker was on the pavement to both pass materials and poles up to his colleagues, and to marshal the pedestrians. He did not see a woman approaching from the opposite direction.
One of the scaffolders leant a short steel pole against a guardrail. As he turned away, the pole fell onto the woman, causing a gash to her leg which needed hospital treatment. She was immobilised for several weeks, and later suffered from anxiety while out in the city. If the pole had struck her head or torso, the accident could have been fatal.
From my own image library, not from this case - who else do you need to consider here?
Legal case
Sky Scaffolding (Midlands) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaches of Reg 10(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (relating to the requirement to “prevent any person being struck by any falling material or object which is liable to cause personal injury”) and to Reg 3(1b) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. 3(1)a refers to the health and safety of employees, while 1(b) refers to:
the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking
That is, everyone else who can be affected by your work.
They were fined £4,000 + £1,761 costs. Under the 2016 Sentencing guidelines, the fine today would be more significant given the harm risked was death.
References
More case studies are listed in Appendix 1 by theme or Appendix 1 by date.
See the full contents list for the book
You can use the Contact form to send me feedback. If you’d like to receive an email when I add or update a chapter, please subscribe to my ‘book club’