subject: Health & Safety: Good Ideas, Bad Reputation [print this page] Health and safety, it is safe to say, is not a popular area of the law. People who claim that it represents everything that the 'nanny state' stands for, and point out examples of over-zealous officials applying rules with unflinching rigidity, such as the the students banned from throwing their mortars in the air during graduation photos in case they hurt someone, the children told by a Dorset Swimming pool that they couldn't bring their own lilos in case they carried germs, and an elderly lady who was told that, while she tended her garden, she would have to wear a hi-visibility jacket and put out a roadworks sign.
But of course, these are ridiculous examples perpetuated by 'jobsworths' who are afraid to deviate from the rules in any way whatsoever. The public hear these tales because everyone likes a good laugh at exaggerated bureaucracy's expense, and well they might. However, there aren't so many jeers whenever health and safety lapses lead to serious injury and even death. The reason these rules exist is to enforce employers' and public bodies' responsibilities towards people to whom they owe a duty of care.
Why Health and Safety Isn't So Stupid
All this week we have been considering cases that have arisen because employers have not taken this duty seriously enough: the warehouseman whose hips and pelvis were snapped when a lorry reversed into him, the engineer who was told to saw through a metal pillar, weighing 65 kilograms, that then landed on his head and gave him permanent brain damage, the young apprentice who was told to work on an unsupported roof and who then came crashing through it, the air conditioning engineer whose colleague mistakenly blasted oxygen on to hot piping, resulting in a fireball which burned 14% of his body. Earlier in the week, there was the story of Tomasz Kmiecic, a Polish builder who slipped from a ladder that was completely inappropriate for the job he was meant to be doing. Furthermore, they weren't even insured.
Most employers take their health and safety responsibilities seriously. Why wouldn't they? The penalties for being caught out far outweigh the very slight benefits of not having to bother to look after their staff. There are always organisations and businesses that try to escape with as little effort as they can. While there is never any suggestion of malice, there is always lackadaisicalness and apathy.
The death of Luigi Feola
Today's news features the sad tale of Luigi Feola, an Italian who worked on the crew of a ferry that was docked in the port of Newhaven in East Sussex.
Mr Feola was carrying a hose along the edge of the quay on January 12, 2005, when he apparently slipped and fell to his death. Witnesses reported hearing a splash near the ferry approximately an hour after it had docked. A post-mortem examination suggested that the 38 year old had suffered a head injury in the fall and then drowned. Both his employer, Forship s.p.a, and the operator of the dock, Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd, were found guilty on Wednesday of breaching health and safety at work regulations and fined heavily: Forship 100,000 and NP&P 85,000. They were also ordered to pay almost 78,000 in court costs between them.
Health and Safety Executive Paul Vinnicombe said, "It's absolutely vital that the quaysides at ports are maintained properly, are well lit and are fit for purpose. The lack of proper planning, combined with the appalling state of the quayside at the port, led to the unnecessary death of Mr Feola. On top of that, the risks involved in the job he was asked to do had not been assessed, and he was not give a suitable lifejacket, torch, or radio.
"This highlights why rigorous health and safety procedures are needed at working ports, and it is totally unacceptable that improvements identified following the incident were not made sooner."
NP&P also admitted to not implementing the recommendations of an Improvement Notice that was issued in the wake of Mr Feola's death.
Work Accident Claim?
With this prosecution succeeding, the question now remains: will the family of Mr Feola, who was required to more than 100 hours per week, be able to pursue a compensation claim on his behalf? Since the accident occurred in the UK, the case will fall under British jurisdiction and they will be entitled to pursue a work accident claim under the no-win no-fee rules.
