Lorry driver seeks High Court damages of more than £300,000

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
121

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:
Well, when it comes to safety, my life depends on not cutting to the chase! :stuck_out_tongue:

I’ve written manuals covering H&S requirements for drivers which are shorter than your ramblings.

But we’re not writing a H&S manual for drivers to follow. We’re talking mainly about the public policy around H&S.

A belief that seems to abound here is that employers only have to protect workers from injuries that arise otherwise than from workers’ own mistakes, when in fact workers’ own mistakes are a main cause of accidents that they need to be protected from (and compensated for if they arise). It’s not easy to justify why that should be the case just by exchanging a few soundbites.

It’s getting to the point where you moan about the length of my posts but spare no effort taking to the keyboard to complain about them, instead of adding anything useful - if you agree with my posts and think you can boil down what they contain in a way that still covers all points and hopes to persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree, then please do so. It would surely be great if every disagreement on a complex subject could be argued and resolved with a few grunts and murmurs.

Both employers and employees are responsible for Health and Safety at work, Employers only have to do what is practical, it may not be practical for them to visit every site where their trucks are tipping.
However an employee can carry out a risk assessment on a remote site and is in their rights to refuse to carry out the work if they consider it dangerous.

As for this case we only have the information from the writ to go on, which is being served on behalf of the driver, so it is going to be biased. I have not found an HSE report on this or the previous case, which might have been a completely unrelated series of events or a situation of a driver not following procedures laid down by the company.

So as we can’t discuss with any accuracy what happened in this case. That means we’re down to principles and that is while employers bear a great deal of responsibility for H&S and should face prosecution for failings, it doesn’t take away the responsibility from the employee to look after themselves and others or facing the consequences for their own failings.

122

Wheel Nut 3:
How about, if tipping, look [emoji102] up, if dropping a trailer, look [emoji102] down, if reversing, look [emoji102] behind you, and if driving forward, look [emoji102] where you are ZB going.

It’s never that simple. Last time I was using a tipper, I was doing more with my eyes than just looking upwards to the sky.

If you asked me to describe the typical behaviour of certain kind of experienced bulk tipper driver, it’s jumping out the cab forwards, jamming the levers on while they run past them, and getting to the back to open the tailgate - and given that the guy who got electrocuted was said to be at the rear of the vehicle when it happened, and the whole thing is smoking or on fire (implying that the lines couldn’t have been hit before he got to the back of the vehicle, and therefore it must have been moving upwards without the driver being at the controls), I’d be surprised if that wasn’t what he did.

It’s also obvious from the width of the road that he was hemmed in between the vehicle by high hedges, and to have casually seen that the overhead lines were cast over the road at that exact place, he probably would have had to move well away from the vehicle to get the necessary perspective.

123

muckles:

Rjan:
…

Both employers and employees are responsible for Health and Safety at work, Employers only have to do what is practical, it may not be practical for them to visit every site where their trucks are tipping.

But consider the convention that the tipper is not raised anywhere away from dedicated sites which have had prior scrutiny for safety. By controlling the places in which the tipper is raised to a very limited number of places, it then becomes reasonably practicable to assess those sites (and if necessary, practicable to re-engineer them to be safe for the particular kind of task, and to embed into them any past learning about what the hazards are).

It seems to me that you’re approaching the question in the fallacious way that I’d already identified, of assuming that the work, however it is currently done, must continue to be done in exactly the same way with exactly the same equipment, and with no additional constraints, but if possible with some small safety bolt-ons which are virtually free of cost.

To a company whose marginal business model depends on the public dumping of waste, the implication of it being “reasonably practicable” to stop tipping on the public road may indeed mean that they have to shut down - the fact that some small businesses can’t afford to be safe doesn’t mean it becomes “impracticable” for them to comply with H&S law, because it is also reasonably practicable for them to cease the unsafe operation altogether and let other parts of the industry take the demand over in a safer way.

That is also supported by case law - that the “reasonably practicable” requirement is by reference to the accepted good (although not necessarily the best) practices of an industry, not by reference to the resources of the particular firm.

However an employee can carry out a risk assessment on a remote site and is in their rights to refuse to carry out the work if they consider it dangerous.

This guy surely didn’t do anything he knew was dangerous at the time. And what is a “risk assessment” here? Is it just code for the practice of telling the employee on his first day at work to “make sure he looks around any tipping area”? Is anything further done to train these techniques and embed them into working habits?

Is there any recognition that, if they work most of the time on familiar sites, employees may cease the habit of reassessing them each visit, and start to forget what a full range of hazards look like (so that, faced with a new site or a public road, there is no habit or experience to support the requirement for them to assess it)? Dedicated risk assessors are not tasked with assessing the same place on the same site every single day.

As for this case we only have the information from the writ to go on, which is being served on behalf of the driver, so it is going to be biased. I have not found an HSE report on this or the previous case, which might have been a completely unrelated series of events or a situation of a driver not following procedures laid down by the company.

So as we can’t discuss with any accuracy what happened in this case. That means we’re down to principles and that is while employers bear a great deal of responsibility for H&S and should face prosecution for failings, it doesn’t take away the responsibility from the employee to look after themselves and others or facing the consequences for their own failings.

It’s not about taking the responsibility away from employees. One can accept both propositions at once, that the employee was responsible for an oversight, and the employer was responsible for organising the work in such a way that a single small oversight had major consequences.

124

Rjan:
It’s not about taking the responsibility away from employees. One can accept both propositions at once, that the employee was responsible for an oversight, and the employer was responsible for organising the work in such a way that a single small oversight had major consequences.

Which is basically what I said in my first post on the subject on thursday, the driver and the company both bear liability for what happened.

There has no doubt been failings following H&S procedures by both the company and the driver and I do have some sympathy for the driver, he has paid dearly for a moments carelessness, but I wouldn’t like to say how much I’d apportion blame to either side until I know more facts from the incident and not just from a one sided writ.

125

The next time you are stuck in motorway roadworks have a look at the markings for excavator or tipper drivers, normally a plastic fluorescent strip strung across the road where there is a bridge or power lines, it’s a reminder to lower the body or boom

126

Wheel Nut 3:
The next time you are stuck in motorway roadworks have a look at the markings for excavator or tipper drivers, normally a plastic fluorescent strip strung across the road where there is a bridge or power lines, it’s a reminder to lower the body or boom

If Mrs B’s boom gets any lower it will end up with gravel rash :frowning:

Her bingo wings aren’t fairing much better. They are in a neck & neck race with her ■■■■■ to catch up with the afore mentioned :neutral_face:

127

eagerbeaver:

Wheel Nut 3:
The next time you are stuck in motorway roadworks have a look at the markings for excavator or tipper drivers, normally a plastic fluorescent strip strung across the road where there is a bridge or power lines, it’s a reminder to lower the body or boom

If Mrs B’s boom gets any lower it will end up with gravel rash :frowning:

Her bingo wings aren’t fairing much better. They are in a neck & neck race with her ■■■■■ to catch up with the afore mentioned :neutral_face:

You better hope she doesnt start reading this forum EB, mine has and ive had a couple of kicks in the shins for my troubles…shes not fiesty at all…honest… :grimacing:

128

If Mrs B’s boom gets any lower it will end up with gravel rash :frowning:

Her bingo wings aren’t fairing much better. They are in a neck & neck race with her ■■■■■ to catch up with the afore mentioned :neutral_face:
[/quote]
You better hope she doesnt start reading this forum EB, mine has and ive had a couple of kicks in the shins for my troubles…shes not fiesty at all…honest… :grimacing:
[/quote]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you better hope she never finds out about the ones you posted about her,then once you thought the better of it,you got the mods to delete them before she saw them…they merited more than a quick kick on the shins…oops… :astonished:

129

Too late lads :frowning:

Been sat with a bag of frozen peas on my grid for the last couple of hours :blush: :cry:

130

eagerbeaver:
Too late lads :frowning:

Been sat with a bag of frozen peas on my grid for the last couple of hours :blush: :cry:

Excellent there is a god after all.

131

bobbya:

eagerbeaver:
Too late lads :frowning:

Been sat with a bag of frozen peas on my grid for the last couple of hours :blush: :cry:

Excellent there is a god after all.

Thanks mate. Never really thought of myself as a God before.

But the more I think about it, the more I like it :grimacing: Worship me fool…

132

eagerbeaver:
What an out and out raging bellend.

Couldn’t agree more. Absolute muppet of the highest order. I’ve no doubt his solicitor thinks the same, at least the staff in the solicitor’s office. Maybe even the judge and court staff think so as well . . .

but that’s not what is at stake in a court room. This case is about procedure, plain and simple; did the company have a SSOW for this procedure and did the driver follow it?

Having had a previous incident in similar circumstances did the company learn from it or carry on as before?

Remember also this case has absolutely sweet fa to do with common sense - it’s about law.

133

At work we had this firm in pulling a walking floor doing recycling waste a while back. Now if this driver was usually on walking floor work and got asked to take a tipper out and wasn’t reinducted or retrained on them, Hadn’t got the paperwork up to date just doing his boss a favour maybe that’s what this is about?

Anyone can have an accident if your doing something your not used to. Another example could be pulling a standard sized trailer 99% of the time then getting asked to take a double decker out and forgetting the low bridge on route?

134

Stanley Knife:

eagerbeaver:
What an out and out raging bellend.

Couldn’t agree more. Absolute muppet of the highest order. I’ve no doubt his solicitor thinks the same, at least the staff in the solicitor’s office. Maybe even the judge and court staff think so as well . . .

but that’s not what is at stake in a court room. This case is about procedure, plain and simple; did the company have a SSOW for this procedure and did the driver follow it?

Having had a previous incident in similar circumstances did the company learn from it or carry on as before?

Remember also this case has absolutely sweet fa to do with common sense - it’s about law.

I’m a little bit unsure, but would I be right in thinking you’re falling back into the incorrect assumption that the case turns purely on whether the employer had a written procedure in place?

135

Rjan:
I’m a little bit unsure

Not only are you arrogant enough to believe you’re right about everything, you’re patronising with it.

136

Stanley Knife:

Rjan:
I’m a little bit unsure

Not only are you arrogant enough to believe you’re right about everything, you’re patronising with it.

Well I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. And eventually in a discussion I tend to end up being right (in the sense of having a view with logical integrity) - because I never stay in the wrong, even if sometimes I start off being in the wrong.

I often think people sometimes miss when I’ve changed my view - perhaps partly because I often notice when I’m wrong before they do, and perhaps partly because it gets lost amongst the number of points on which I’m right.

137

Rjan:

Stanley Knife:

Rjan:
I’m a little bit unsure

Not only are you arrogant enough to believe you’re right about everything, you’re patronising with it.

Well I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. And eventually in a discussion I tend to end up being right (in the sense of having a view with logical integrity) - because I never stay in the wrong, even if sometimes I start off being in the wrong.

I often think people sometimes miss when I’ve changed my view - perhaps partly because I often notice when I’m wrong before they do, and perhaps partly because it gets lost amongst the number of points on which I’m right.

An awesome display of self proclamation.

Incredible.jpg

138

Rjan:
Well I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. And eventually in a discussion I tend to end up being right (in the sense of having a view with logical integrity) - because I never stay in the wrong, even if sometimes I start off being in the wrong.

I often think people sometimes miss when I’ve changed my view - perhaps partly because I often notice when I’m wrong before they do, and perhaps partly because it gets lost amongst the number of points on which I’m right.

Nah mate it’s because nobody can be arsed to read the walls of text you constantly produce.

139

harrawaffa:

Rjan:
Well I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. And eventually in a discussion I tend to end up being right (in the sense of having a view with logical integrity) - because I never stay in the wrong, even if sometimes I start off being in the wrong.

I often think people sometimes miss when I’ve changed my view - perhaps partly because I often notice when I’m wrong before they do, and perhaps partly because it gets lost amongst the number of points on which I’m right.

Nah mate it’s because nobody can be arsed to read the walls of text you constantly produce.

Then don’t. I manage to skim past whatever I’m not interested in - I don’t read every post on the board end-to-end.

I suspect on this issue people are just tired of hearing how they can’t put workers in risky situations and expect get away with it. People would be a lot better off if they listened to the reality, because then we wouldn’t all have to sit through reading ■■■■■■■■ safety paperwork that bosses think covers their arse, and instead we’d get safe workplaces.

140

Rjan:
Well I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. And eventually in a discussion I tend to end up being right (in the sense of having a view with logical integrity) - because I never stay in the wrong, even if sometimes I start off being in the wrong.

I often think people sometimes miss when I’ve changed my view - perhaps partly because I often notice when I’m wrong before they do, and perhaps partly because it gets lost amongst the number of points on which I’m right.

And the mask slips. An ability of a good troll is to keep his arrogance in check whilst being able to garner the attention he craves.

Credit where credit’s due you’re good, better than the vast majority of wasters who troll this forum (the left wing loony toon copy and paste nonsense was very good), but ultimately your house of cards is built on sand.