falls from aqueduct - whose fault?
Discussion
k him, he chose poorly. 100% him. 
hutchst said:
Roofless Toothless said:
A lot will depend on the examination of the risk assessment for this structure, to which the public, it seems, has free access.
People getting into wrong places is something that could well be expected. Remember risk assessments should be written with regard to what is likely to happen, not what is supposed to happen.
And an occupier can discharge its duty of care through the appropriate use of signage.People getting into wrong places is something that could well be expected. Remember risk assessments should be written with regard to what is likely to happen, not what is supposed to happen.
I seem to remember an H&S guy coming to work and giving examples of tragic accidents that had happened where people had entered dangerous areas, one of these being a lift machinery room where the victim had entered and got mangled by the motors. The firm were prosecuted by H&S and naturally their defence was that the door was plastered with lots of warning notices 'risk of serious injury or death' etc etc.
Verdict: Guilty of negligence! It was ruled that notices were not sufficient, as the victim could have been illiterate, dyslexic, chronically short-sighted, or a non-English speaker, and that the firm should have kept the door securely locked with controlled access to the key only to authorised personnel.
Must say I was quite surprised, but the guy also said that British Rail (as it was then) had abandoned trying to defend cases where kids had strayed onto the tracks and got injured or killed as the same criteria apparently applied i.e. BR should have ensured no unauthorised access was possible (obviously just not do-able along thousands of miles of track, but H&S innit).
Vizsla said:
You sure that's right?
I seem to remember an H&S guy coming to work and giving examples of tragic accidents that had happened where people had entered dangerous areas, one of these being a lift machinery room where the victim had entered and got mangled by the motors. The firm were prosecuted by H&S and naturally their defence was that the door was plastered with lots of warning notices 'risk of serious injury or death' etc etc.
Verdict: Guilty of negligence! It was ruled that notices were not sufficient, as the victim could have been illiterate, thick, dyslexic, chronically short-sighted, or a non-English speaker, and that the firm should have kept the door securely locked with controlled access to the key only to authorised personnel.
Must say I was quite surprised, but the guy also said that British Rail (as it was then) had abandoned trying to defend cases where kids had strayed onto the tracks and got injured or killed as the same criteria apparently applied i.e. BR should have ensured no unauthorised access was possible (obviously just not do-able along thousands of miles of track, but H&S innit).
I seem to remember an H&S guy coming to work and giving examples of tragic accidents that had happened where people had entered dangerous areas, one of these being a lift machinery room where the victim had entered and got mangled by the motors. The firm were prosecuted by H&S and naturally their defence was that the door was plastered with lots of warning notices 'risk of serious injury or death' etc etc.
Verdict: Guilty of negligence! It was ruled that notices were not sufficient, as the victim could have been illiterate, thick, dyslexic, chronically short-sighted, or a non-English speaker, and that the firm should have kept the door securely locked with controlled access to the key only to authorised personnel.
Must say I was quite surprised, but the guy also said that British Rail (as it was then) had abandoned trying to defend cases where kids had strayed onto the tracks and got injured or killed as the same criteria apparently applied i.e. BR should have ensured no unauthorised access was possible (obviously just not do-able along thousands of miles of track, but H&S innit).
FourWheelDrift said:
I can't see him squeezing through the railing as said in the article, over yes and then nothing on the other side to really get any feet on.
Vid shows the approach. About 17 seconds in there are two fences on the left.looks like you could get through there if determined enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BCVIEN5css
Vizsla said:
You sure that's right?
I seem to remember an H&S guy coming to work and giving examples of tragic accidents that had happened where people had entered dangerous areas, one of these being a lift machinery room where the victim had entered and got mangled by the motors. The firm were prosecuted by H&S and naturally their defence was that the door was plastered with lots of warning notices 'risk of serious injury or death' etc etc.
Verdict: Guilty of negligence! It was ruled that notices were not sufficient, as the victim could have been illiterate, dyslexic, chronically short-sighted, or a non-English speaker, and that the firm should have kept the door securely locked with controlled access to the key only to authorised personnel.
Must say I was quite surprised, but the guy also said that British Rail (as it was then) had abandoned trying to defend cases where kids had strayed onto the tracks and got injured or killed as the same criteria apparently applied i.e. BR should have ensured no unauthorised access was possible (obviously just not do-able along thousands of miles of track, but H&S innit).
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough CouncilI seem to remember an H&S guy coming to work and giving examples of tragic accidents that had happened where people had entered dangerous areas, one of these being a lift machinery room where the victim had entered and got mangled by the motors. The firm were prosecuted by H&S and naturally their defence was that the door was plastered with lots of warning notices 'risk of serious injury or death' etc etc.
Verdict: Guilty of negligence! It was ruled that notices were not sufficient, as the victim could have been illiterate, dyslexic, chronically short-sighted, or a non-English speaker, and that the firm should have kept the door securely locked with controlled access to the key only to authorised personnel.
Must say I was quite surprised, but the guy also said that British Rail (as it was then) had abandoned trying to defend cases where kids had strayed onto the tracks and got injured or killed as the same criteria apparently applied i.e. BR should have ensured no unauthorised access was possible (obviously just not do-able along thousands of miles of track, but H&S innit).
I'm not saying that it applies to the facts of this case, just that it is possible in law.
Some interesting information on this website:
http://www.londonboaters.org/floater-jan2017-pontc...
I have no connections so don’t know how true any of it is.
The webpage includes this picture which I presume is from the same aqueduct:
http://www.londonboaters.org/floater-jan2017-pontc...
I have no connections so don’t know how true any of it is.
The webpage includes this picture which I presume is from the same aqueduct:
Pesty said:
FourWheelDrift said:
I can't see him squeezing through the railing as said in the article, over yes and then nothing on the other side to really get any feet on.
Vid shows the approach. About 17 seconds in there are two fences on the left.looks like you could get through there if determined enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BCVIEN5css
TheRainMaker said:
Ed. said:
195mm instead of the 110mm current standard, I think I could squeeze through that and it's been a while since I was 18.
Bet you wouldn't though!I do quite a bit of skiing, and if you go the wrong way, you have a cliff to deal with. With no safety rails and no one easily on hand to bail you out. It means you have to make the assessment of what is "safe" for yourself.
This young person perhaps had learned they could rely on other people's risk assessment and could, therefore, push the boundaries with minimal risk.
I'm sorry for the family that he died - I hope others may learn from his mistake.
Scrump said:
Some interesting information on this website:
http://www.londonboaters.org/floater-jan2017-pontc...
I have no connections so don’t know how true any of it is.
The webpage includes this picture which I presume is from the same aqueduct:
http://www.londonboaters.org/floater-jan2017-pontc...
I have no connections so don’t know how true any of it is.
The webpage includes this picture which I presume is from the same aqueduct:
article said:
Mr Mcdowell’s death by falling from the aqueduct is not the only one to take place recently. Two months after Mr McDowells death, 24-year-old Benjamin Hughes died following a fall from the aqueduct. A final hearing has yet to take place. The same coroner also confirmed just days before Mr Mcdowells death that a third person, Darren Macfalane, aged 39, had died falling from the aqueduct.
The problem the C&RT may have is that much of its infrastucture is victorian. Think of tow paths alongside canals or deep locks.Should all of them have some sort of safety fencing these days, or is it obvious that it's dangerous?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff