p.k.roberts Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Just popped into my inbox and posted for info; http://press.hse.gov.uk/2014/former-hull-firm-in-court-after-drama-on-stage/?ebul=hsegen&cr=7/10-mar-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top-cat Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Anyone who has built a ground support will know exactly what this is referring to. Pushing up the verticals using the hinge plate at the base of the tower. WHY so many companies still insist on doing this by getting the guys to walk it up from underneath is beyond me. Anyone who's done it will know how heavy they are and it only takes one person to slip and the weight on the others is significantly increased. I've felt huge pain in my back just from the sheer weight going through your body, but you can't do anything about it because it'll only make it worse for the others. They always tell you that there's no budget for a proper tower lifting frame but then they cover the thing in 60 moving lights. Surely one of the movers could have been cut to pay for the tower lifting frame? Oh no, now it's not about cost. Now it's about time. Because putting people in obvious danger to save an hour has always been acceptable. Also how is it that by dissolving a company nobody can be prosecuted? It's not the company that is dangerous - the company is just some paperwork and legal terms. The people who are responsible for these breaches - they are dangerous. And they will be back with another company with another name doing the same stuff. Why is the HSE unable to prevent this? How can dissolving a business relieve you from responsibility or liability? Surely there is a paper trail pointing to who chose not to use the correct equipment; or to why they chose not to use it? Personally I think if people can make themselves immune to prosecution by dissolving companies, the HSE's ability to prosecute dangerous individuals who pose a real risk to the safety of honest and genuine workers, and indeed the general public, will be seriously impaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I was working at this event though was off site at the time of the incident. It is very interesting to read this from the HSE as they leave out many important details of what actually happened. Top-cat, your accusations of penny pinching and putting the workers in danger are way off the mark. However, I do agree with what you say about HSE not being able to prosecute the company. I know why the company was dissolved and it had nothing to do with this incident, but it is very surprising that HSE are unable to pursue it further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top-cat Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I was working at this event though was off site at the time of the incident. It is very interesting to read this from the HSE as they leave out many important details of what actually happened. Top-cat, your accusations of penny pinching and putting the workers in danger are way off the mark. However, I do agree with what you say about HSE not being able to prosecute the company. I know why the company was dissolved and it had nothing to do with this incident, but it is very surprising that HSE are unable to pursue it further. I'm not saying that necessarily in this instance it was about penny pinching or putting people in danger. However, I have put up many a ground support where I could not see an obvious reason for why correct lifting equipment was not provided, although have been told more than once "because it takes ages". I wasn't there so not speculating on the actual incident, but the way ground support towers are erected is something which IMO needs a bit of work as an accident was begging to happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Also how is it that by dissolving a company nobody can be prosecuted? I think they can. I can't remember the detail, but there was an incident locally (another trade altogether) and the owner was killed. There was then a prosecution of the son of the deceased who had inherited the business. I know it is semantically different, but if they can visit the sins of the father on the son, they could go after those responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 The definitive answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart91 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 there was an incident locally (another trade altogether) and the owner was killed. There was then a prosecution of the son of the deceased who had inherited the business. A limited company has a separate "legal personality" from any of the people involved in it. So if the father died, and his shares in the company were passed to the son, the legal personality of the company is unchanged, it's just the ownership that is different. If the son is a director of the company, then he's liable to be hauled up in front of the authorities to answer for its past sins. If the company had been dissolved on the death of the father, and the assets etc. sold to the son, then it would be far harder to chase him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_korman Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 there was an incident locally (another trade altogether) and the owner was killed. There was then a prosecution of the son of the deceased who had inherited the business. A limited company has a separate "legal personality" from any of the people involved in it. So if the father died, and his shares in the company were passed to the son, the legal personality of the company is unchanged, it's just the ownership that is different. If the son is a director of the company, then he's liable to be hauled up in front of the authorities to answer for its past sins. If the company had been dissolved on the death of the father, and the assets etc. sold to the son, then it would be far harder to chase him. Isn't culpability/liability under HSWA "joint and several"? Meaning that not only can the company be prosecuted, but the individuals concerned can be prosecuted in their own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry davies Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Complicated stuff but HSE cannot prosecute someone or something that no longer exists like a dissolved company. See Para 13.6 for a simpler linky to follow than Brian's, thanks anyway Brian, always useful. The case that saw the son prosecuted was probably the Gloucester builder killed laying concrete slabs for a milking parlour whose son was named as a director of the company. Though not actually involved or an active part of the business he did gain from it and subsequently took it over. There may well have been legal and other circumstances that saw this case proceed as it did but the outcome is what we need to understand. Cutting corners and failing to follow MI's is never an option. As Tim writes, this case, just like most, has aspects that we are not party to. Guessing on the safety forum as to what happened or how is not productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 The really salutory part of this experience for me is seeing how an apparently simple action done with the best of intentions can result in a horrible accident, someone being seriously injured, and eventually an HSE prosecution. It all looks so obvious and clear cut with hindsight, but it was not so at the time. In the fast-paced environment of an event setup, spotting a risky action is often difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior8 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Using a forklift for something it was never intended for - I wonder just how many zillion accidents are down to that in how many fields by now??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImagineerTom Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 No, the error here was lifting something over people's heads without any proper secondary support system. Whether they'd used an FLT or some fancy truss lifting system it wouldn't have mattered as the mistake here was having no secondary / failsafe system in place AND having people stood in the topple zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top-cat Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Yes Tom you are right, having people stood underneath is a recipe for it go wrong. That was more my point was that here they were using the forklift to lift PLUS people pushing from underneath. The tower lifting thing you use, that is completely self sufficient and thus doesn't require people to be underneath the tower pushing up from the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itiba Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 http://i58.tinypic.com/2cs7y0y.jpg Just been posted to the 'Dodgy Technicians' FB group. Ever so slightly safer but still not ideal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart91 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Just been posted to the 'Dodgy Technicians' FB group. Ever so slightly safer but still not ideal I'm no expert in putting up a structure of this size, but wouldn't you still need someone at the bottom of each leg to get them placed exactly where you want them? I can see that being a potentially hazardous operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.