Quick one please - Weight of Lintel
Discussion
Pre cast conc. lintel.
Aprox weight of 140mm x 100mm x 1.8m long, please.
Used to replace the rotten wall plate of a mid 1800's, 6 floor town house in Central London.
Fecking agency labourer dropped one on his foot the other week a broke his left little toe, well I say broke it was more like smashed to be honest and down at C&W A&E they were talking about taking it off due the open fracture, mangle of bone and tissue and the high risk of infection.
Anyway I have to calculate the weight for the collated list of info I have to get together for us to defend a claim by this Bulgarian Labourer who BTW was only on site for 5 hours as well.
This Little fecker is claiming 13 weeks sick pay 'Preceding' the accident and the 11 weeks 3 days and counting afterwards via his ambulance chasing leeches.
Oh and before anyone asks, I am sitting here in steel toe cap boots and I can feel my little toe exposed to the side of and behind the back of the capping.
We as a company have followed all the H&S procedures i.e. Accident report filled in, safety Rep report reporting to the board, RIDDOR ( even though it precludes fingers and toes), Systems and procedures are in place via method statements and risk assessments, PPE, Site Inductions, etc etc.
Oh and apparently the little fecker has high tailed it back to Bulgaria as well. Not sure where we are with the sick pay stance there either.
I am not totally unsympathetic to this chap as I gave him my company fleece at the hospital as it was getting or was going to be cold on the way home from Hospital, and £30 to get a taxi rather than struggle on the tube home.
EDIT: to add that the solicitors letter said it was a conc. block of 400mm x 400mm x 1.8m, he was forced to use his bare hands, and the place was a death trap, even after out own external monitors had given the site a top score in each of it's categories.
Aprox weight of 140mm x 100mm x 1.8m long, please.
Used to replace the rotten wall plate of a mid 1800's, 6 floor town house in Central London.
Fecking agency labourer dropped one on his foot the other week a broke his left little toe, well I say broke it was more like smashed to be honest and down at C&W A&E they were talking about taking it off due the open fracture, mangle of bone and tissue and the high risk of infection.
Anyway I have to calculate the weight for the collated list of info I have to get together for us to defend a claim by this Bulgarian Labourer who BTW was only on site for 5 hours as well.
This Little fecker is claiming 13 weeks sick pay 'Preceding' the accident and the 11 weeks 3 days and counting afterwards via his ambulance chasing leeches.
Oh and before anyone asks, I am sitting here in steel toe cap boots and I can feel my little toe exposed to the side of and behind the back of the capping.
We as a company have followed all the H&S procedures i.e. Accident report filled in, safety Rep report reporting to the board, RIDDOR ( even though it precludes fingers and toes), Systems and procedures are in place via method statements and risk assessments, PPE, Site Inductions, etc etc.
Oh and apparently the little fecker has high tailed it back to Bulgaria as well. Not sure where we are with the sick pay stance there either.
I am not totally unsympathetic to this chap as I gave him my company fleece at the hospital as it was getting or was going to be cold on the way home from Hospital, and £30 to get a taxi rather than struggle on the tube home.
EDIT: to add that the solicitors letter said it was a conc. block of 400mm x 400mm x 1.8m, he was forced to use his bare hands, and the place was a death trap, even after out own external monitors had given the site a top score in each of it's categories.
Edited by CedGTV on Wednesday 2nd November 16:30
Was he lifting it on his own? Or was he asked to lift it on his own?
That's definitely not a 1 man lift, and he should have refused to lift it if he wasn't happy doing it on his own.
Does he have a CSCS card? I think they cover the basics, including manual handling?
0.100 x 0.180 x 1.800 = 0.0324m3 and 1m3 is roughly 1 ton?
Can it be worked out like that?
ETA - scrap that, just done a quick google, seems 1m3 of concrete is around 2,300kg
That's definitely not a 1 man lift, and he should have refused to lift it if he wasn't happy doing it on his own.
Does he have a CSCS card? I think they cover the basics, including manual handling?
0.100 x 0.180 x 1.800 = 0.0324m3 and 1m3 is roughly 1 ton?
Can it be worked out like that?
ETA - scrap that, just done a quick google, seems 1m3 of concrete is around 2,300kg
Edited by Slagathore on Wednesday 2nd November 18:15
CedGTV said:
Registered CSCS card holder, was lifting the lintel up stairs with one other a tradesman who was at the bottom end of the lift.
No pressure for him to do the lift and had done 3 lifts previously.
Just a stumble that's going to cost us.
Never like this when I started out.
That's why you have insurance. Your premium will not go up by much if anything.No pressure for him to do the lift and had done 3 lifts previously.
Just a stumble that's going to cost us.
Never like this when I started out.
Does my head in why people cannot take responsibility for their actions any more. If I'm not looking where I'm going a trip up a kerb, it's my fault not the council's. The trouble with these people is that everyone now has to cover their arse which means you cannot even walk on site without tonnes of paperwork!!
CedGTV said:
Registered CSCS card holder, was lifting the lintel up stairs with one other a tradesman who was at the bottom end of the lift.
No pressure for him to do the lift and had done 3 lifts previously.
Just a stumble that's going to cost us.
Never like this when I started out.
And what did your manual handling RA have in place to cover this eventuality?No pressure for him to do the lift and had done 3 lifts previously.
Just a stumble that's going to cost us.
Never like this when I started out.
How could the operation have been avoided? Was there a toolbox talk specifically covering this operation?
Was he advised that he was not obligated to do it? Thats what you will be asked for starters, have the right answers in place.I'm sick to death of these ponses trying to earn a free lunch. Oh, and ask for his boots he had on at the time, if he is agency he should have turned up wearing the appropriate PPE and you should have provided any further PPE required for a specific task.
roofer said:
And what did your manual handling RA have in place to cover this eventuality?
How could the operation have been avoided? Was there a toolbox talk specifically covering this operation?
Was he advised that he was not obligated to do it? That's what you will be asked for starters, have the right answers in place.I'm sick to death of these ponses trying to earn a free lunch. Oh, and ask for his boots he had on at the time, if he is agency he should have turned up wearing the appropriate PPE and you should have provided any further PPE required for a specific task.
The roofers own risk assessment stated that the Supply, Lifting and Fixing of Conc lintels had a Manual Handling injury hazard, and was identified as a Medium uncontrolled risk. and That all lifting and lowering operations should be planned organised and carried out by competent persons. There was a Manual Handling Risk form filled out for this section of the works, but how can you legislate for this person carrying out the task 3 times and dropping the load on the 4th.How could the operation have been avoided? Was there a toolbox talk specifically covering this operation?
Was he advised that he was not obligated to do it? That's what you will be asked for starters, have the right answers in place.I'm sick to death of these ponses trying to earn a free lunch. Oh, and ask for his boots he had on at the time, if he is agency he should have turned up wearing the appropriate PPE and you should have provided any further PPE required for a specific task.
He was inducted to site by me and told of among other things, site specific hazards and about the type of work to be done.
His CSCS card no. was checked as there seems to be a few fake ones turning up now and again, and set to work.
It transpires that the legal people engaged by him were under the illusion he was full time for us and not agency. It helps slightly but we are taking all the info we have and laying it at their door.
No doubt updates to follow.
CedGTV said:
It transpires that the legal people engaged by him were under the illusion he was full time for us and not agency. It helps slightly but we are taking all the info we have and laying it at their door.
No doubt updates to follow.
Can (or at least used to be) tricky to prove that an Agency worker is not actually working directly for you and therefore directly under your responsibility.No doubt updates to follow.
Sorry, just clarify, we are dealing with the claim from his solicitors, with info supplied from our/his agency.
There is no doubt he hurt himself that day, and we are not totally unsympathetic, but we feel we have put certain control measures in place but I don't think you can ever really factor out every single risk.
There is no doubt he hurt himself that day, and we are not totally unsympathetic, but we feel we have put certain control measures in place but I don't think you can ever really factor out every single risk.
CedGTV said:
Sorry, just clarify, we are dealing with the claim from his solicitors, with info supplied from our/his agency.
There is no doubt he hurt himself that day, and we are not totally unsympathetic, but we feel we have put certain control measures in place but I don't think you can ever really factor out every single risk.
I feel for you and understand. Fact of life though is that the starting point is 50/50 blame - your company will have to cough up.There is no doubt he hurt himself that day, and we are not totally unsympathetic, but we feel we have put certain control measures in place but I don't think you can ever really factor out every single risk.
Answer me this - who was he taking orders from?
Personally, i think you have done all you can. You ensured that you were satisfied a 'competent' person carried out the task and inducted him on the specific requirements of said task. You could have done no more. I would stick to your guns and see it through, but your legal paople will probably advise you to settle due to accruing fees etc.
dickymint said:
I feel for you and understand. Fact of life though is that the starting point is 50/50 blame - your company will have to cough up.
Answer me this - who was he taking orders from?
Me.Answer me this - who was he taking orders from?
But I had said that he can be used by the roofers to shift their delivery, but they weren't abusing the situation in anyway.
Am in with our external H&S people tomorrow for our response to 'the' letter.
My company is all for telling him to feck right off and hold for not paying a penny but i'm starting to realise that I may as well start reaching for the vaseline.....
Not really sure why YOU are worrying about this - report it to your Employers Liability insurers and let them get on with it. They will more than likely interview you, witnesses on site and form their opinion on liability. If he didn't have safety shoes/boots on then there is going to be a fair bit of contributory negligence on his part.
They may try to buy him off with an offer to settle early/quickly as it keeps their costs down.
They may try to buy him off with an offer to settle early/quickly as it keeps their costs down.
CedGTV said:
dickymint said:
I feel for you and understand. Fact of life though is that the starting point is 50/50 blame - your company will have to cough up.
Answer me this - who was he taking orders from?
Me.Answer me this - who was he taking orders from?
But I had said that he can be used by the roofers to shift their delivery, but they weren't abusing the situation in anyway.
Am in with our external H&S people tomorrow for our response to 'the' letter.
My company is all for telling him to feck right off and hold for not paying a penny but i'm starting to realise that I may as well start reaching for the vaseline.....
It's all about percentages (proportional blame). Lube will be required dependant on how far up he rams it
Normal procedure would be to call him in for a disciplinary so as not to be seen admitting guilt.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff