Jump to content

Two guilty over girl's bouncy castle death


Simon Lewis

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
This one was an accident waiting to happen - the type of inflatable is known as being very wind susceptible (despite reports it wasn't a "bouncy castle" it was a structure you climb inside through an airlock and is 6m high with a bouncing area inside), it wasn't properly staked down, there were already yellow weather alerts in place yet the owners/operators freely admit they didn't think it was relervant, the owners freely admitted that they hadn't ever even though about getting an anemometer or any kind of weather monitoring equipment (so proving that the RA's they had were insufficient) it really is a textbook example of failing just about every duty of care, risk management and obligation they had rather than them falling foul of a technicality. The book will be thrown at them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They certainly do deserve everything the judge can throw at them if only for claiming the defence that it was unforeseeable, Tom. After Dreamscape, PIPA, the formation of BIHA, MUTA guidance and all that has taken place over the years that is patent rubbish.

 

My unanswered questions lie around whether EHOs visited site, who was the "responsible person" for the site and why no other fairground folk raised a warning. The couple are very young and possibly inexperienced but their arrogance does not absolve others of at least some responsibility.

 

As for "acts or omissions" Simon, that is an integral part of H&S law with the added bonus that the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty unless you can prove innocence. Omissions are liable to prosecution when the legislative Act involved requires a duty (such as the "duty of care" under HASAWA) and the accused is guilty of neglecting that duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly some fun bag operators failed to learn the lessons of the Dreamspace accident which highlighted the very real dangers of large fully enclosed inflatable structures and their wind resistance. My own view has long been that such devices are inherently unsafe not only because of their size but also because it is impossible to accurately assess the security of any ground tethering fixings on unknown terrain. As these defendents found once it starts to go wrong it goes from bad to worse very rapidly. As for responsibility if they are the controller it is down to them, if they are merely attendants it's down to the controller. HSE are very clear on that. In this case despite them being widely reported as fairground workers they must have actually owned the device for these charges to be laid. Inexperience may be mitigating but it is no defence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were the owners and if you read the full trial details there’s a whole host of other safety failures they had made at all levels - from the big details mentioned above right down to not having proper safety barriers around the blowers.

 

There is a problem in the funfair and circus world around H&S - on all the forums every day there will be half a dozen posts from people asking for other people to send them risk assessments / design checks for attractions because the funfair or event operator has asked for them and the operator doesn’t know/care that the whole point of these processes is to make the operator aware of and question their safety policies.

 

One of the few good things to come out of this incident will hopefully be an understanding of the “why” these questions are asked; though ironically it will be because of the fine and imprisonment rather than the death. A few of the smaller trade bodies have already begun trying to educate their members (and the h&s executive got very hands on with issuing guidance and explaining prohibitions straight after the incident) but the bigger bodies are dragging their feet about explaining what this means to their members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I agree with the verdict of the court, so much was done wrongly in this case.

 

As regards improving the safety of these attractions, I have often wondered why more use is not made of IBCs full of water to anchor them. A full IBC is known to weigh about a ton, in contrast to stakes or ground anchors of unknown holding capacity in unknown ground conditions. IBCs are cheap and readily available, easily moved by hand when empty or by fork lift truck if full.

 

And of course a ground anchor may suddenly pull out and leave the inflatable free to fly away. A full IBC is unlikely to fly ! any movement or partial lifting should be an unmistakable sign that the attraction should be quickly deflated.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used to use them as ballast for stages, but it was often difficult to get them filled - often there was just a garden hose and the venue complaining about water meters.

 

Also they can slide quite easily on some surfaces especially if pulled upwards by a guy line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no

no no no no no no no no no no no no

absolutely no,

 

Firstly just look at the raw numbers. a filled IBC weighs a ton (though they are rarely filled properly so usually closer to 850kg) although that is the effective strength/weight ONLY if the force applied to it is straight upwards. As soon as you start pulling at any kind of angle that effective weight plummets in orders of magnitude and if there's any debris under the IBC and it's on any kind of smooth surface (ie some bits of grit under an IBC used on tarmac - the most common use for them) then you've effectively created rollers and one person could push and move the IBC. Add to this the percussive effect caused by water sloshing and you've got something which if hit by the wind a few times to get a rhythm going could actually start moving itself.

There's also no properly rated point on an IBC to attach your guy rope too and above all you're using the IBC well outside of its original design intentions and manufacturers's recommendations putting you in direct contravention with H&S rules and CDM obligations. I flat out refuse to work on any site that allows IBC's to be used as ballast for structures.

 

Contrast this with a stake - a 50cm stake in typical ground will provide easily provide the equivalent of 1ton holding force and will provide it consistently in just about every direction other than the direction required to pull the stake out. Switch to a properly designed screw stake or auger and the forces they can withstand are multiples of this - our proprietary screw stake (90 cm long, can be put in by hand tool easily) was independently tested to over 7 ton pull before the eyelet they were attaching to snapped; the stake itself was still fine.

 

The condition and make-up of the ground does impact the strength of stakes but not in any mysterious way - if you stand on the ground and it gives way (either by being waterlogged/muddy or by being powder/sand) then you have ground that is less strong than ground which feels firm. You mitigate against these factors by using a longer stake and going in deeper - in optimum conditions it's rare that a stake would need to go deeper than 40cm but because you never actually get those conditions you use a stake double that size and go deep since there's no negative effect to having an anchor point that's "too strong" and it doesn't really take any more time or effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if the outfit referred to in the OP were not monitoring wind speed and changes I doubt they’d be in a position to be using IBC or screw in stakes... not for “just” a bouncy castle... nice idea tho

I have never, in all my years, met an operator who could or would transport a single IBC along with his kit. The idea that one of them could or would drag half a dozen around is a non-starter. Besides which if you can't nail it down, leave it on the van is rule one. A relatively light breeze can shift some of the higher inflatables and that showground is wide open to the weather.

 

They did know better, she is from an old showman family and admitted to having undergone a day's training when her father bought it. Some of their excuses were more feeble than a schoolkids "dog ate my homework". If they never set foot on a showground again it will be too soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge problem these days with huge inflatables. Some people do not have a clue in regards to the safety of the equipment. I have known someone who got hold of a huge inflatable slide for only a few quid and then set it up at car boots to make a few quid. It's anchored down with a few sandbags. There are no barriers around the pump and a trailing cable just going across the ground. I even asked him about his setup and did he use any stakes or anything and he was like, "The sand bags will be fine"

 

Me and health & safety do not see eye to eye but I believe in common sense. With this idiot setting up a slide for kids to use and not even bothering about being safe then his slide should be deflated. I did mention my concerns to the organisers for the car boot and they didn't care. As long as their pitch was paid for then that is what they were bothered about. I do not let my kids on any inflatable slides etc unless I have see if there are any decent precautions in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once filled a huge bouncy castle entirely with water so it didn't need anchored down. It went very rigid and made loud rubbery, squeaking noises and the kids just made dull thudding sounds when they jumped inside it. We had a lot of complaints from parents about bruising, skid-burns, concussion and damaged limbs.

 

 

Then it burst and they had to close the whole event. (it was in a church hall)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I joined the fair for a fortnight back in the late 70's, to clarify some friends of our were fairground people and a high proportion had gone down with the flu, I took 2 weeks of work with BT and joined them.

 

In BT we had been exempt from H&S 1974 but were rapidly catching up so I had become very aware of such things. The lack of safety awareness of some of the operators was very obvious to me and to be frank I was glad to be out of it when the 2 weeks was over, additionally I tried to avoid mobile fairgrounds for a while.

 

It is very different now of course but incidents like this one still happen and it always seems to be the bouncy castles or catering trailers.

 

I get involved with temporary power quite often and always inspect the fixings for inflatables before supplying the power (not that I am qualified to do so!). One such occasion no fixings had been fitted and after a long 'discussion' with the operator and additionally the venue safety officer some 300mm straight lengths of re-bar were pulled from the van which were declared unsuitable by SO, he was told to find some proper stakes or leave.

 

Another operator already on site saw the situation and asked if he could bring in an alternative inflatable to fill the gap, first thing he did was screw it down, I think they were more like 500mm, certainly shorter than the 900mm mentioned earlier.

 

The attitude of the 2 operators was so different and the event organisers have built a great rapport with second guy ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.