A PAT Case Study worthy of note

See more examples here

The perils of personal liability

If your staff raises concerns about something, do you just add it to the list of things to do "later"? If so, recent case law shows that you could be personally liable for any accidents So what should you be doing to cover your backside?

You probably find it hard enough to juggle your day with all the different demands made on your time. So it's hardly surprising that some health and safety issues get stuck on the "to do sometime" list. But if these concerns include a safety issue that could kill, is it just your staff that risk getting their fingers burnt? Or could you be held personally liable for any resulting accident?

PAT Case Study

These issues were looked at in a recent prosecution against a manager for breach of s.7 (a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This section says: "it shall be the duty of every employee whilst at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety ... of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work". Mr H. was employed as the health and safety manager for the Lincoln branch of a popular restaurant chain. Whilst he was there, a kitchen assistant was electrocuted due to a defective plug on a plate warmer. Several employees had previously reported receiving shocks from this piece of equipment, but it was never removed from use or repaired. However, H. had never been informed of the problem, so he entered a plea of not guilty.

Becoming a scapegoat

This case was heard by a District Judge who found H guilty. The reasoning isn't totally clear, but it's to do with how he prioritised his role. It appears that the restaurant chain had a history of high profile breaches of hygiene regulations, so H. concentrated on trying to sort those out. This meant that he let safety issues slide and there was no system in place for portable appliance testing. So under s.7 (a), this would count as an omission that led to an employee's death.

As a result, environmental health officers found that eleven of the 58 electrical appliances in the restaurant were faulty. Despite the obvious lack of resources in terms of manpower for health and safety issues, the judge fined H. £3,000 plus £3,000 costs. However, he acknowledged that to some extent H.'s role as health and safety manager made him a scapegoat for the failings of his employer.

Your own position

This clearly shows that the courts are starting to target those with health and safety responsibilities when things go badly wrong. But what is more worrying is that despite the judge admitting that H had been made a scapegoat, he was still found guilty. We don't yet know whether he's going to make an appeal, but irrespective of this, you'd be advised to take some simple precautions.

Tip 1: If you don't already have one, introduce a system of portable appliance testing. A good company will produce all the records for you, so you don't even need to worry about setting up a recording system.

Tip 2: Have an arrangement where staff can report suspected electrical faults. However, you must ensure that suspect equipment is removed from the workplace and labelled "do not use".

Tip 3: Instruct staff on how to identify basic electrical faults e.g. defective wiring and damaged outer cables.

In a recent case, a manager was personally fined £3,000 for failing to act on employees' concerns about electrical safety. Introduce a system of portable appliance testing NOW to avoid personal liability.

See more examples here

Copyright 2010 KTS ltd. All rights reserved.

Kingsmead Testing Services Ltd

Promote your Page too