£50,000 fine for H&S breach

[John Holden]

 

If a dry dock owner wishes to hire out a dry dock with the proviso that the owner must provide his own equipment (pressure washer, access equipment etc) then that would be perfectly legitimate.

 

They would still have a duty of care.

[gazza]

Dave, you are going round in a daft circle.

 

The owners of the site do have a responsibility to anyone on their premises, there should be a documented risk assessment for all aspects of work likely to be carried out, there should be a method statement detailing how to control the risk, and there should be a site induction highlighting any risks and the controls in place to reduce the risks. This isn't over the top knee jerk reaction to health and safety, it is the way any compyny That carries out works that could lead to injury or loss of life should operate.

 

The decision made in court agrees with this. Accidents can and d happen, but good health and safety policies along with management that are pro active in implementing them can reduce the chance of accidents occurring.

 

Simple saying a disclaimer relinquish the site operater of any responsibility is nonsense, a more sensible approach would be for anyone involved in docking operations to take the safety of people who have paid to use their facilities and equipment seriously.

[Steilsteven]

Indeed I am wrong, because the law says that I am wrong.

 

In this great country of ours I am free to opine that the law is an ass.

 

The Dry dock was found guilty because the man fell from equipment belonging to them. It is unclear whether they supplied that equipment to him in that condition, or if he rigged up the platform himself.

 

I maintain that if the Operator makes clear that the contract is simply for the hire of the dock, and that NO EQUIPMENT will be supplied (and removes any equipment), or offers to supply other equipment as optional extras, and clearly states that "the user warrants that he will erect a suitable means of access to the vessel", they would not be responsible.

 

 

The site owner would still be accountable in the circumstances you suggest, because he/she would still have to be satisfied that all equipment brought onto site was safe and suitable for purpose. It's no different to one of his employees bringing their own tools to work. This applies to ALL persons entering a place of work whether they're hirers, employees or volunteers. If you think the law is a ass because of this, I suggest you tell this to Mrs Perris.

 

Keith

[Nightwatch]

When i first heard of this mans accident and death I made a comment on the lines of, if you are in a dry dock and an industrial environment surely you have to accept that fact and the risks that go with it.

 

With hindsight perhaps it wasn't the best thing to say in the circumstances. However, a couple of years ago we stayed on our boat for four days whilst in dock and used two scaffold boards side by side for access. I'm not sure what would have been said if either of us had fallen into the dock. I guess the situation in this case started as a friendly, "of course you can stay on board, we'll put a board up for you" type of thing.

 

If the chap had not fallen in then there would still be others carrying out the same routine. I am on a fence here. Sometime H&S can go too far, and sometimes accidents do happen. HSE have to earn their keep. Tongue in cheek smiley please.

 

I am sad to hear of any accident, certainly one that ends with a death.

 

Martyn

[journeyperson]

I wasn't aware that this case was pending when I used Worsley Dry Dock in March but was conscious that the owners had a much more careful attitude to H&S from the last time I'd been there in 2009.

 

At that time the dock did supply a plank to access the boat and I don't recall that it was secured. This time a plank with handrails was secured at both ends and I was told not to walk on my roof or along the gunnels.

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

2012

 

[Dave_P]

Dave, you are going round in a daft circle.

 

The owners of the site do have a responsibility to anyone on their premises, there should be a documented risk assessment for all aspects of work likely to be carried out, there should be a method statement detailing how to control the risk, and there should be a site induction highlighting any risks and the controls in place to reduce the risks. This isn't over the top knee jerk reaction to health and safety, it is the way any compyny That carries out works that could lead to injury or loss of life should operate.

 

The decision made in court agrees with this. Accidents can and d happen, but good health and safety policies along with management that are pro active in implementing them can reduce the chance of accidents occurring.

 

Simple saying a disclaimer relinquish the site operater of any responsibility is nonsense, a more sensible approach would be for anyone involved in docking operations to take the safety of people who have paid to use their facilities and equipment seriously.

 

Gazza - Although I've often been known to go round in daft circles, on this occasion it seems we're singing from the same hymn sheet, doesn't it? What part of what I've said is in conflict with what you've said? In fact I think you've made a series of perfectly valid points.

[gazza]

Gazza - Although I've often been known to go round in daft circles, on this occasion it seems we're singing from the same hymn sheet, doesn't it? What part of what I've said is in conflict with what you've said? In fact I think you've made a series of perfectly valid points.

 

Got out of the habit of using quote on me stupid touch phone.

My comment was for Dave mayalld.

Sorry for any confusion, I 100% agree with all you have posted.

 

The right dave will no doubt reply when at work tomorrow.

[mayalld]

Got out of the habit of using quote on me stupid touch phone.

My comment was for Dave mayalld.

Sorry for any confusion, I 100% agree with all you have posted.

 

The right dave will no doubt reply when at work tomorrow.

 

I am delighted to be awarded the Moniker of "The right Dave"

 

I stand by my opinion that people should be responsible for their own actions.

[gazza]

Ok, so in your organisation, RM if I remember correctly, all employees, sub contractors and visitors should be responsible for their actions?

[John Holden]

Ok, so in your organisation, RM if I remember correctly, all employees, sub contractors and visitors should be responsible for their actions?

 

Then in that case shouldn't the employers be also responsible?

[gazza]

Yes, absolutely. I can't one finger type the H&S act 1974 nor copy and past riddor regs and puwer on my stupid phone.

Basically Dave mayalld is saying dock owners were not to blame for accident, the chap who died was mainly at fault.

The law says the person operating the site was at fault for not observing and complying with minimum safety standards and precautions.

In my industry lots of sites wont let a 7.5t driver on site without a safety induction, let alone our installation crews, this is because the site owners hold a duty of care to anyone on their site, employed, sub contracted visitor or otherwise.

Edited October 2, 2012 by gazza

[ditchcrawler]

Indeed I am wrong, because the law says that I am wrong.

 

In this great country of ours I am free to opine that the law is an ass.

 

The Dry dock was found guilty because the man fell from equipment belonging to them. It is unclear whether they supplied that equipment to him in that condition, or if he rigged up the platform himself.

 

I maintain that if the Operator makes clear that the contract is simply for the hire of the dock, and that NO EQUIPMENT will be supplied (and removes any equipment), or offers to supply other equipment as optional extras, and clearly states that "the user warrants that he will erect a suitable means of access to the vessel", they would not be responsible.

Even if you have a specialist come onto your work site you can still be held responsible if they have an accident, by specialised I mean someone removing asbestos or working on high voltage cables. It may be something you know nothing about but if it goes wrong you can still be held responsible. Just like if you have hazidous waste removed and some time later it ends up in a gateway. It's still your waste.

[mayalld]

Ok, so in your organisation, RM if I remember correctly, all employees, sub contractors and visitors should be responsible for their actions?

 

 

Haven't worked for Rm for 18 months now.

 

There is a distinction between somebody coming into a place of work that you operate and somebody renting a place to establish their own place of work.

 

If I rent an industrial unit, for example, the landlord has a duty in respect of the condition of the building. He has no responsibility in respect of me having safe and appropriate equipment to work in the building.

 

How is renting a dry dock different from renting a building?

[John V]

Health and safety tries to remove all risk, trouble is the only way I know to avoid all risk is to stick your head in the gas oven and turn it on.....whoops sorry you can't do that now cos' its got a flame failure device!

 

Should be common sense but thats not very common either

 

I feel I should add that I used to be an employer and I do firmly believe in being as safe as possible, however I have also fought over officious health and safety officers on several occasions... why should I wear a hard hat when the only thing that is above me is a pigeon, why should I wear safety boots when I am in a carpeted office and the heaviest tool I am using is an electricians screwdriver, why should I use 110volt tools when the office is not only carpeted but has 240v sockets every 10 feet....etc etc

Edited October 3, 2012 by John V

[navmanl200]

 

If the dry dock rigged the walkway, or told him that he should use it, then you may have a point.

 

If he merely utilised equipment that was stored in the building you do not.

 

He hired the premises, in order to carry out work. He was not employed by the owners to carry out work.

 

The owners have a duty to ensure that the premises are not in an unsafe condition, but that duty cannot extend to ensuring that he provides himself with a safe walkway.

 

If a dry dock owner wishes to hire out a dry dock with the proviso that the owner must provide his own equipment (pressure washer, access equipment etc) then that would be perfectly legitimate.

Appologies for digging up an old thread, but Richard was my best mate, he was like a brother to me so I have the experience of knowing him, which you DO NOT.

 

Sadly my man I have to say you are wrong on ALL counts the 'company' is required to ensure the safety of ANY person who enters their premises, whether they are there to work, or as a visitor, that included PROVIDING a safe means of access & egress from any boats within their dry dock. What you also don't know about Worsley Dry Docks Ltd, is that 8 years previous to Richards accident, they had a similar accident where a plank slipped, but the chap was lucky and fell in feet first, he broke both of his legs, shattered BOTH kneecaps, and broke his pelvis, he obviously spent a long time in hospital, but made a recovery. On that occasion the H&S executive visited the dry dock, and advised WDDL to change the way in which people access and egress their boats, the advice was given in the way of a change of practice notice. The change of practice was to provide youngman's boards WITH Attached HAND RAILS, and ROPED OFF to both ends to prevent any movement for access and egress from ANY boat using the dry dock, now unfortunately the H&S exec didn't go back to check, whether WDDL had carried out this change (which they had) they purchased new youngman's boards with 'Attachable' handrails, the shame is that because the H&S never came back, nobody ever bothered to enforce the use of the handrails on the planks, so they just sat on the dockside gathering dust, had the H&S come back they would have seen this and corrected it and Richard would still be with us today. It's got absolutely nothing to do with 'ambulance chasing' as you put it, we just don't want to see anyone go through what we have gone through ever again, as it happens someone posted a link to a blog on the second page of this thread which is about a bloke (Alan i think his name was) who had exactly the same accident nearly 12 months on to the day from Richard, so obviously this is still liable to happen.

 

Another thing that REALLY winds me up is all the people who say " I wouldn't have done it that way, I would have put the handrails up and roped it and made sure it was safe" can I ask you, honestly...... Had we not been having this conversation in this thread and it was just about access and egress to boats, and Richard hadn't died, would you ?? would you really have gone to all the trouble of putting the handrails up (that WDDL didn't tell you were there) and that you HAVE TO BY LAW rope both ends of the plank off. I think I know the TRUE answer, and it's NOT the same one you would put on here because you wouldn't like to be seen to be 'breaking the law'. Am i right or am i right ?? I think i know the answer !

[nicknorman]

Appologies for digging up an old thread, but Richard was my best mate, he was like a brother to me so I have the experience of knowing him, which you DO NOT.

 

Sadly my man I have to say you are wrong on ALL counts the 'company' is required to ensure the safety of ANY person who enters their premises, whether they are there to work, or as a visitor, that included PROVIDING a safe means of access & egress from any boats within their dry dock. What you also don't know about Worsley Dry Docks Ltd, is that 8 years previous to Richards accident, they had a similar accident where a plank slipped, but the chap was lucky and fell in feet first, he broke both of his legs, shattered BOTH kneecaps, and broke his pelvis, he obviously spent a long time in hospital, but made a recovery. On that occasion the H&S executive visited the dry dock, and advised WDDL to change the way in which people access and egress their boats, the advice was given in the way of a change of practice notice. The change of practice was to provide youngman's boards WITH Attached HAND RAILS, and ROPED OFF to both ends to prevent any movement for access and egress from ANY boat using the dry dock, now unfortunately the H&S exec didn't go back to check, whether WDDL had carried out this change (which they had) they purchased new youngman's boards with 'Attachable' handrails, the shame is that because the H&S never came back, nobody ever bothered to enforce the use of the handrails on the planks, so they just sat on the dockside gathering dust, had the H&S come back they would have seen this and corrected it and Richard would still be with us today. It's got absolutely nothing to do with 'ambulance chasing' as you put it, we just don't want to see anyone go through what we have gone through ever again, as it happens someone posted a link to a blog on the second page of this thread which is about a bloke (Alan i think his name was) who had exactly the same accident nearly 12 months on to the day from Richard, so obviously this is still liable to happen.

Another thing that REALLY winds me up is all the people who say " I wouldn't have done it that way, I would have put the handrails up and roped it and made sure it was safe" can I ask you, honestly...... Had we not been having this conversation in this thread and it was just about access and egress to boats, and Richard hadn't died, would you ?? would you really have gone to all the trouble of putting the handrails up (that WDDL didn't tell you were there) and that you HAVE TO BY LAW rope both ends of the plank off. I think I know the TRUE answer, and it's NOT the same one you would put on here because you wouldn't like to be seen to be 'breaking the law'. Am i right or am i right ?? I think i know the answer !

You may well be right about the law - in fact you almost certainly are. But not all laws are a good thing. Whilst I am sorry for this chap and in particular those he left behind such as you, ultimately the world is a dangerous place and life is a delicate and transient thing easily lost. Trying to pretend that the world must be a safe place by enshrining it in law is a futile, unsustainable and counter - productive tactic. It lulls people into a false sense of security and doesn't encourage people taking responsibility for their own safety. We are breeding a new generation who can't go outside without a yellow jacket and have no idea about self-preservation.

 

So whilst for example employers should have a responsibility to their workforce for avoiding dangerous machinery etc, employees should also have the same responsibility to observe self preservation. In the case of a facility, tools etc being supplied for personal use, I think liability should be limited to hidden perils that your average person couldn't detect. In the case of a gangplank over a pit, the hazard is obvious, the gentleman knew he was taking a risk but did so anyway, and unfortunately suffered the consequences. I can only see that as his fault - regardless of what the law might have to say about it.

[navmanl200]

You may well be right about the law - in fact you almost certainly are. But not all laws are a good thing. Whilst I am sorry for this chap and in particular those he left behind such as you, ultimately the world is a dangerous place and life is a delicate and transient thing easily lost. Trying to pretend that the world must be a safe place by enshrining it in law is a futile, unsustainable and counter - productive tactic. It lulls people into a false sense of security and doesn't encourage people taking responsibility for their own safety. We are breeding a new generation who can't go outside without a yellow jacket and have no idea about self-preservation.

 

So whilst for example employers should have a responsibility to their workforce for avoiding dangerous machinery etc, employees should also have the same responsibility to observe self preservation. In the case of a facility, tools etc being supplied for personal use, I think liability should be limited to hidden perils that your average person couldn't detect. In the case of a gangplank over a pit, the hazard is obvious, the gentleman knew he was taking a risk but did so anyway, and unfortunately suffered the consequences. I can only see that as his fault - regardless of what the law might have to say about it.

I don't disagree that some of the responsibility should be borne by the person using the dock, I am not saying that the company is to blame entirely, but the whole point here is that WDDL broke the law by not complying with a H&S request to change their working practice, and ENSURING the use of youngman's boards both secured and WITH a handrail, had they done that then as they HAVE NOW, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, therefore everyone would be safe in their beds at night. And unfortunately no matter what 'you' think the law is the LAW ! It's the same law that protects you and me every time we walk into Tesco's or M&S, Costa Coffee etc.

Edited May 31, 2013 by navmanl200

[nicknorman]

I don't disagree that some of the responsibility should be borne by the person using the dock, I am not saying that the company is to blame entirely, but the whole point here is that WDDL broke the law by not complying with a H&S request to change their working practice, and ENSURING the use of youngman's boards both secured and WITH a handrail, had they done that then as they HAVE NOW, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, therefore everyone would be safe in their beds at night. And unfortunately no matter what 'you' think the law is the LAW ! It's the same law that protects you and me every time we walk into Tesco's or M&S, Costa Coffee etc.

 

But sometimes laws are shortsighted and not in a country's best interests (quite often, in fact!) and this is such a case. HSE is all about compliance with the law, and nothing about compliance with common sense and taking responsibility for one's own actions, and that is why in some areas it is bad for the country's future. We are in decline as all civilisations do after their peak, getting bogged down with stupidity, teaching the next generation that they have to carry out a risk assessment before opening the breakfast cereal packet etc. We currently get away with this because we are propped up by an oil economy, but in the lifetime of our current children, its likely we will run out of oil and instant energy will no longer be available. I hope we get fusion power on line by then but not holding my breath! There will be oil wars and a massive need for self-reliance and survival, and have we educated our children in this respect? No, quite the opposite in fact, we have doomed then to an unpleasant death.

 

I don't really expect you to "buy" my point because, just like extremist religion, HSE is beguiling and blinding and its very hard to see reality when you have been immersed in HSE as we all are.

Edited May 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[Machpoint005]

>>>HSE is all about compliance with the law, and nothing about compliance with common sense and taking responsibility for one's own actions <<<

 

Most of the health and safety law I am familiar with is precisely about common sense and taking responsibility for oneself and each other. The problems start when somebody fails to use it or forgets their responsibilities, which is why the laws are necessary.

[navmanl200]

And while i could argue until i am blue in the face about the law (which you clearly don't care for) the point is THE LAW IS THE LAW !
I do not disagree about us turning into a nation of namby pambies protected from everything by H&S law, and for your information a risk assessment has been carried out for 'opening a breakfast cereal packet' i worked for a company that used to make them ! but while the law is here and i am afraid here it is to stay, we ALL have to abide by and work with the law, that includes common sense, and like i said in my first post and i know what you will answer when i ask the question.... EVERY time you have dry docked your boat (Since you have had a boat) not just since the law was changed to protect everyone) have you personally made sure that BOTH ENDS of your gang plank are secure WITH A HANDRAIL, and made sure the handrails are secure before entering or exiting your boat in the dry dock? I know exactly what you are going to say, as you would be stupid to say anything else, but you and I both know that MOST people would have quite happily used a gang plank without handrails and not secured as boaters have done since the advent of boats, (we didn't even have H&S then) It didn't happen until 1974 !

[Chris Pink]

When did you last go into a dry dock, and remonstrated with the owner, that the plank you had for access to your boat, was not complient with h& s standards? Go on...when?

 

At Bradford dry dock the last time I was there. Not only was I not happy about crossing a scaff plank 9 foot up with heavy tools the gunwale height was a good 18" below dock level.

 

I would almost always go down the ladder and back up.

 

I was also very unhappy about electrical safety and the state of their RCDs.

 

And yes, I did complain.

[nicknorman]

Most of the health and safety law I am familiar with is precisely about common sense and taking responsibility for oneself and each other. The problems start when somebody fails to use it or forgets their responsibilities, which is why the laws are necessary.

My point is that HSE professionals, and of course the courts, are only interested in whether the company etc is compliant with the law. If the law was perfect in every circumstance (which it never could be) that would be fine but its not. In my company, we have HSE professionals who are into risk assessments (whose outcome can be determined before you start) and silly rules about holding the handrail on stairs, not walking around with a cup of coffee without a lid etc, but also the Flight Safety department who are seperate and all about not crashing, which seems eminently sensible to me as a pilot! There is a massive disconnect between the two philosophies.

 

In this case, a chap hired a drydock and decided to cross a plank to his boat over a deep and hard pit, he fell and killed himself, but that turns out to be someone else's fault. That is what is wrong.

 

And while i could argue until i am blue in the face about the law (which you clearly don't care for) the point is THE LAW IS THE LAW !

The law is also an ass! Sometimes.

 

I drive an outrageously fast Hayabusu motorbike with a top speed just under 200mph, and gets to 150 in under 10 seconds. Its potentially lethal but designed and sold in the UK. If I kill myself on it (which is quite possible, the way I drive!) in my opinion that would be entirely my fault, not the manufacturer's nor the seller's. But extrapolating the dry dock scenario, you would have it that it would be someone else's fault for allowing me to risk my own life. That is where the whole concept inevitably fails.

[twbm]

 

My point is that HSE professionals, and of course the courts, are only interested in whether the company etc is compliant with the law. If the law was perfect in every circumstance (which it never could be) that would be fine but its not. In my company, we have HSE professionals who are into risk assessments (whose outcome can be determined before you start) and silly rules about holding the handrail on stairs, not walking around with a cup of coffee without a lid etc, but also the Flight Safety department who are seperate and all about not crashing, which seems eminently sensible to me as a pilot! There is a massive disconnect between the two philosophies.

 

In this case, a chap hired a drydock and decided to cross a plank to his boat over a deep and hard pit, he fell and killed himself, but that turns out to be someone else's fault. That is what is wrong.

 

The law is also an ass! Sometimes.

 

I drive an outrageously fast Hayabusu motorbike with a top speed just under 200mph, and gets to 150 in under 10 seconds. Its potentially lethal but designed and sold in the UK. If I kill myself on it (which is quite possible, the way I drive!) in my opinion that would be entirely my fault, not the manufacturer's nor the seller's. But extrapolating the dry dock scenario, you would have it that it would be someone else's fault for allowing me to risk my own life. That is where the whole concept inevitably fails.

 

The law imposes speed restrictions and a set of driving rules which if complied with serve to at least mitigate the risk. A bit like a requirement for anchored planks and handrails I think.

[nicknorman]

 

The law imposes speed restrictions and a set of driving rules which if complied with serve to at least mitigate the risk. A bit like a requirement for anchored planks and handrails I think.

Yes but the difference is, its up to me to ensure that I abide by the law ( which of course I do, ossifer) its not up to the provider of the bike ( manufacturer or seller) to check that I'm doing so. In the same way as the owner of the dry dock provided a gangplank that probably shouldn't have been used, so Mr Suzuki has given my bike a top speed that probably shouldn't be used. But the law takes an inconsistent view on these two matters (fortunately, although I'm sure the nanny state is working on it!) Edited May 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[navmanl200]

The difference is that you 'choose' whether you chuck common sense out of the window every time you get on the bike, and like i said before and you never answered ..... HOW MANY TIMES have you got on and off your narrowboat in a dry dock with a plank that hasn't been secured at BOTH ends and a handrail fitted ?? Because the answer is you have at some time in the past done this, and i would be very surprised if you told me anything else, all i am asking is for people to hold their hands up and say, "yes i did that, and yes it was stupid and dangerous" "and i see the error of my ways" because we are all human and WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES, that is why the H&S law is there to protect us from ourselves and the stupidity of others, what i trying to get people to see here is regardless of whether Richard was wrong in not securing the plank himself or not, in a place like that, the choice should not be to secure or not to secure it should be WE (the drydock) have fitted and secured your plank, to ensure your and everyone else's safety, because 'historically' and it all goes back to when boats were born, and like i said you have done it and you know you have it's historical, and the handrail thing is new to most people. And anyway, the drydock has not shut down, it's still there and still going, so this whole thread was a waste of time and effort on everyone's behalf
There is a lot you do not know about this case which i cannot and would not discuss, due to 3 years later the case is still not settled.