"Teacher sues...school after falling off ladder adjusting theatre

[itiba]

As reported by the Metro

A drama teacher is suing one of the UK's top all-girls schools after breaking his neck falling 12ft off a ladder while adjusting theatre lights.

The School's barrister says "Any training which the claimant did not receive but should have received would only have dealt with matters of which the claimant was already aware, by reason of common sense and experience." Reported that the matter is going to trial so I'll keep an eye out and post how to obtain a link to watch remotely the day before.

County Court at Central London

 

Case F01YM039 Mr Harry Wilkinson v Queen Elizabeth's Girls School

 

[kerry davies]

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that on 9 May 2016 a teacher was conducting rigging and adjustments to spotlights and cabling in the School drama studio when he fell from a stepladder. A fellow teacher present in the room turned to find her colleague had fallen from the ladder and was unconscious on the drama studio floor having suffered multiple fractures to the skull, wrist and elbow as a result of the impact.

 

The Court also heard that the defendant, Queen Elizabeth’s Girls’ School of Barnet, North London, had inadequately risk assessed work at height in its Drama Studio and had failed to provide the teachers conducting the work with sufficient training for work at height, despite these matters being requirements in its own health and safety policy, and despite the presence of a health and safety e-learning tool available for teachers and other staff to use, which included a module on work at height, but which was only made mandatory after the incident.

 

Queen Elizabeth’s Girls’ School, the legal entity controlling the Academy converter school, pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 6(3) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005, was fined £2000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs.

 

Just guessing but going by normal fines levels and the tiny amount of this fine the school is broke. Normally this sort of civil case where the employer has already been found guilty of the criminal offence is a walkover but blood and stones etc. In 2016 a school caretaker fell out of a loft hatch and later died. HSE and the judge thought that the ladder he was using had been left there by a previous user and it was not a real ladder but a stage prop. That resulted in £18,000 fines and about £12,000 costs even though the widow appealed to the court not to impose fines which deprived students of budget. The judge looked at the budget and took the money from "unallocated funds" in order to not penalise pupils.

[Junior8]

Well with £1m in cash or cash equivs they ain't broke.

[itiba]

The case details for the HSE litigation is here: https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions-history/case/case_details.asp?SF=CN&SV=4486939And the breach listed here: https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions-history/breach/breach_details.asp?SF=BID&SV=4486939001

No real detail though. Does show £2k fine and £2.5k costs

 

[kitlane]

The defence seems incredibly flimsy

[Bryson]

Well, they did lose. ;)

[Junior8]

Well yes but they pleaded guilty to a breach of the regulations. Deciding their liability is quite another matter, as the school's counsel points out. It may not be that flimsy at all. In that respect it will be an important case which, were I a headteacher, I would be watching with some interest. Edited March 24, 2021 by Junior8

[ojc123]

This is a serious injury and I do hope the teacher recovers. My first reaction is that I'm surprised anyone would expect a drama teacher to have common sense. I spent 30 years trying to keep drama teachers from doing potentially dangerous things. They were completely banned from ladders, scaffold tower or anything that I wouldn't let an unsupervised toddler onto.

[dje]

Oddly enough I'm going to take his side on this one. Maybe not on account of 'training' (as if he really felt he wasn't trained he ought to have made the complaint PRIOR to falling) but I should imagine the solicitor has advised him to take this angle since failure to ensure staff competence is a clear breach of HASAWA.

 

It really is about time we stop taking this daft approach that the ladder is the answer to the question. That everyone can use a ladder. That it is obvious. That it's risk-free if common sense is applied.

It's about time we stop finding it totally acceptable to carry a lighting fixture up one and rig it to a bar all on your own, using the hands which ought to be on the ladder. To do 3 points of contact you need 4 limbs available.

There are times ladders are appropriate, but we need to end the culture of that time being all the time. There are a plethora of bespoke made options to reduce this risk... from clever towers (I bought a 'Solo' access tower for not much more than a Zarges which folds down tiny and goes up 6m) to motorised grids to powered access to tension wire grids... I am pleased to see that the school has opted for some kind of platform as well as pole up fixtures, this is a step in the right direction; it'd just be nice to see theatres doing this BEFORE people got hurt.

Edited April 29, 2022 by richard
fixed font sizes

[TomHoward]

I'd like to know the details about quality the ladder. In our dept we'll only buy Youngman Class 1 etc whereas the domestic/cleaning dept have some horrible cheap steps which flex and wobble like anything. You shouldn't stand on the top platform or step of a ladder (or even the rail above) but I think most honest people would say they probably have in a pinch - but I'd have much more confidence in one of those than the other. Even in normal usage a lot of the cheap ladders seem very unstable to me.

[GridGirl]

I'd like to know the details about quality the ladder. In our dept we'll only buy Youngman Class 1 etc whereas the domestic/cleaning dept have some horrible cheap steps which flex and wobble like anything. You shouldn't stand on the top platform or step of a ladder (or even the rail above) but I think most honest people would say they probably have in a pinch - but I'd have much more confidence in one of those than the other. Even in normal usage a lot of the cheap ladders seem very unstable to me.

 

That’s an excellent point. When we had our big refurb in 2017, part of the new pit setup was removable acoustic panels which attach to the ceiling (so we can adjust absorption and reflection according to the work being performed). Obviously, being in the ceiling means we needed a pair of ladders to put them up and remove them and the opera house didn’t skimp. They brought a ladder specialist in, he looked at what we needed to do, the average height of the staff doing the job, where we needed to position the ladders and recommended a particular ladder (with a work platform at the top) for the job. I don’t know what they cost but they were not cheap! However, they’re perfect. Lightweight, easy to move around, exactly the right height for the job, exceptionally stable - I’ve never felt anything but totally safe on them. Worth every penny that was paid. The only problem we have with them is stopping other departments stealing them...luckily the House has a myriad of doors and corners where a lot of people never go, so we found a good (and convenient!) hiding place for them and they’ve remained safely in our possession!

[Junior8]

All and sundry use equipment is also a real danger. That is very good point on secure storage and so is regular inspection. I had a top class platform ladder in one space and arrived back after a holiday to find that a contractor had been allowed to use it, quite improperly according to the standing orders for contractors, and it had clearly been dropped from some height with a resulting crack. I refused point blank to use the thing again and the next one was locked on to its brackets. From then on my ladders were only climbed by me. Later when in my final space where everything could be accessed from a 2.5m platform ladder the thing stayed locked in the dimmer room and also locked folded. Once bitten...

[Charlotte_R]

Oddly enough I'm going to take his side on this one. Maybe not on account of 'training' (as if he really felt he wasn't trained he ought to have made the complaint PRIOR to falling) but I should imagine the solicitor has advised him to take this angle since failure to ensure staff competence is a clear breach of HASAWA.

 

It really is about time we stop taking this daft approach that the ladder is the answer to the question. That everyone can use a ladder. That it is obvious. That it's risk-free if common sense is applied.

It's about time we stop finding it totally acceptable to carry a lighting fixture up one and rig it to a bar all on your own, using the hands which ought to be on the ladder. To do 3 points of contact you need 4 limbs available.

 

There are times ladders are appropriate, but we need to end the culture of that time being all the time. There are a plethora of bespoke made options to reduce this risk... from clever towers (I bought a 'Solo' access tower for not much more than a Zarges which folds down tiny and goes up 6m) to motorised grids to powered access to tension wire grids... I am pleased to see that the school has opted for some kind of platform as well as pole up fixtures, this is a step in the right direction; it'd just be nice to see theatres doing this BEFORE people got hurt.

 

I agree. We're an industry that spends a lot of time working at height and we should really try to avoid ladders. IIRC, ladders are the most dangerous form of access at height and they should be way down the hierarchy - I believe they're statistically only slightly less dangerous than rope access; and we expect rope access technicians to do 2 years and 2000 hours of rope access before we allow them to supervise rope access techs.

[Bryson]

I spend a lot of time trying to argue that the access equipment needs to be considered with the rest of the theatre equipment like lights and speakers and budgeted and specified by the theatre consultant. It's an argument I often lose... "We'll buy one of those later" but, of course, by then the money has run out. Sigh.

[kerry davies]

The answer to that one, Bryson, is to slap a six inch nail on the desk and ask them which part of their forehead they would use if they aren't going to invest in a hammer. In your case you could just remind them that what they propose is illegal since they need to risk assess even the choice of access equipment.

 

It seems at a glance that this employer tried to use the availability of on-line training as a get-out and may well argue that the fact that the teacher failed to avail himself of that was itself a breach of his "duty of care to oneself and others" under HASAWA. I used to emphasise that one's first duty of care is to oneself and that might become a factor in proportionality. (X was 50% to blame so gets only half damages)

 

It will be interesting to see which way the judges call this one and as Roger says, a lot of school management will be on tenterhooks. The very idea of having to train teachers in industrial safety has far reaching ramifications. Up until now it doesn't appear to have occurred to many. My old HoDrama had to be locked out of my scaff tower store after he tried to put it up and I arrived to find him and three students up there as it wobbled unstably.