muckles:
PS if you fail to reply in 100 words or less, I’ll ignore the guff you write and assume you haven’t got a clue.
PMSL 
Rentadent:
All that empty road to dump his waste onto and he raises the tipper body directly underneath the crossing power lines, that’s a special kind of stupid.
When the medics said they thought he was dead I think they meant brain dead!
+1
stupid,careless,and nobody to blame except himself.
as for illegal dumping,then look at the back of the trailer.hilda ogden could sweep the lot up onto her dustpan,plus its grain and ely is full of pheasants,so hardly fly tipping.
just a tragic accident with nobody to blame barring himself.
no doubt the no win no fee leeches will have a field day though.
there should be some high speed buck passing going on shortly that would put a game of pass the parcel in a belfast pub to shame.
Can’t wait to see what bill he ends up paying for the defence’s legal costs when he loses.
The driver should also be prosecuted for stealing grain, he left the customers premises with goods on board
If you wonder why the jobs gone down the pan just read some of these posts slagging off a fellow driver, no camaraderie there ,no chance of us all sticking together is there,the firm is at fault for not having a Safe system of work in place for this task,why not slag them off instead.
Was anybody charged?
bobbya:
If you wonder why the jobs gone down the pan just read some of these posts slagging off a fellow driver, no camaraderie there ,no chance of us all sticking together is there,the firm is at fault for not having a Safe system of work in place for this task,why not slag them off instead.
Isn’t it a drivers responsibility to ensure when raising a tank or tipper there’s sufficient clearance and no obstructions present ?
bobbya:
If you wonder why the jobs gone down the pan just read some of these posts slagging off a fellow driver, no camaraderie there ,no chance of us all sticking together is there,the firm is at fault for not having a Safe system of work in place for this task,why not slag them off instead.
If you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with a knuckle dragger that is too thick to realise that power lines are live, and then attempts to sue his company because they never saw fit to tell him not to raise a tipper under them, you go ahead…
Darkside:
bobbya:
If you wonder why the jobs gone down the pan just read some of these posts slagging off a fellow driver, no camaraderie there ,no chance of us all sticking together is there,the firm is at fault for not having a Safe system of work in place for this task,why not slag them off instead.If you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with a knuckle dragger that is too thick to realise that power lines are live, and then attempts to sue his company because they never saw fit to tell him not to raise a tipper under them, you go ahead…
I rest my case,knuckledragger you call him you don’t even know the bloke.
bobbya:
Darkside:
bobbya:
If you wonder why the jobs gone down the pan just read some of these posts slagging off a fellow driver, no camaraderie there ,no chance of us all sticking together is there,the firm is at fault for not having a Safe system of work in place for this task,why not slag them off instead.If you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with a knuckle dragger that is too thick to realise that power lines are live, and then attempts to sue his company because they never saw fit to tell him not to raise a tipper under them, you go ahead…
I rest my case,knuckledragger you call him you don’t even know the bloke.
To be fair I don’t know him. I was just working off an opinion I had built up after reading the article.
Darkside:
So because his company didn’t show him the risks of raising a tipper under power lines, it is their fault…There you have the reason why we are buried under H+S bulldust everyday…
You have this the wrong way around.
The company is liable because he did in fact raise the tipper under the power lines, and that is a mistake that has to be paid for firstly out of the resources of the operation (and priced into the operation) to which the injured employee belongs. It is not necessary that there be any blame on the part of bosses - employees make mistakes.
The public policy issue is to ensure that the risks of industrial accidents are borne by the organisation that creates the context in which they occur, so that businesses don’t free ride on human life and the investment that the state, that other businesses, and that families, make in workers.
Another public policy issue is that, of course, accidents are expensive for a business, and it is a defence for an organisation to say that an employee did not injure himself accidentally because of the work he was doing, but because he wilfully circumvented every step that was taken to prevent him from being hurt accidentally.
Then, it is no longer a question of the organisation having created the risk, but the worker himself who has chosen to act dangerously - not dissimilar to how if a window cleaner jumps from a skyscraper, the fact that it happens at work does not mean it happens accidentally because of work.
In this tipper case, the company is properly liable because it was an accident at work involving a member of the firm, and nothing more. The fact that it was probably preventable is something they should take stock of, because otherwise their mode of operating will become so expensive under the burden of paying for the mistakes made that they will be forced to leave the market.
The worker, blasted by several thousand volts, will also want to take stock, but often it is not the worker who is responsible for determining a safe system of work (including when, where, and at what time work happens) or controlling the resources necessary to mitigate against risks, including the risks of one’s own oversights when under the pressure of work that has been arranged and set by somebody else.
bobbya:
If you wonder why the jobs gone down the pan just read some of these posts slagging off a fellow driver, no camaraderie there ,no chance of us all sticking together is there,the firm is at fault for not having a Safe system of work in place for this task,why not slag them off instead.
There is no “safe system of work” for raising a trailer under live power lines. None. You know why? Because it’s not safe.
Pretty horrific. It said he caught fire 
. Yeah, they should’ve explained how they want it cleaned. Let’s be honest here, thats give him a broom. That’s all and he could’ve worked that one out himself and asked for one.
I’m sure the big legal book says firm won’t have trained this that and the other. And probably correct legally. Let’s be honest. We all have self preservation. It would be been healthy to avoid wires above a country road. Kind of falls under a lot of things in the world like don’t eat yellow snow and avoid being stabbed etc. Things that you really presume most humans learnt when small. Rather than ignorance, sounds like a horrid case of a mistake through rushing or distraction. We all make mistakes.
I know this is totally by the by but the lorry is a nice looking setup. I like the livery.
Rjan:
Darkside:
So because his company didn’t show him the risks of raising a tipper under power lines, it is their fault…There you have the reason why we are buried under H+S bulldust everyday…
You have this the wrong way around.
The company is liable because he did in fact raise the tipper under the power lines, and that is a mistake that has to be paid for firstly out of the resources of the operation (and priced into the operation) to which the injured employee belongs. It is not necessary that there be any blame on the part of bosses - employees make mistakes.
The public policy issue is to ensure that the risks of industrial accidents are borne by the organisation that creates the context in which they occur, so that businesses don’t free ride on human life and the investment that the state, that other businesses, and that families, make in workers.
Another public policy issue is that, of course, accidents are expensive for a business, and it is a defence for an organisation to say that an employee did not injure himself accidentally because of the work he was doing, but because he wilfully circumvented every step that was taken to prevent him from being hurt accidentally.
Then, it is no longer a question of the organisation having created the risk, but the worker himself who has chosen to act dangerously - not dissimilar to how if a window cleaner jumps from a skyscraper, the fact that it happens at work does not mean it happens accidentally because of work.
In this tipper case, the company is properly liable because it was an accident at work involving a member of the firm, and nothing more. The fact that it was probably preventable is something they should take stock of, because otherwise their mode of operating will become so expensive under the burden of paying for the mistakes made that they will be forced to leave the market.
The worker, blasted by several thousand volts, will also want to take stock, but often it is not the worker who is responsible for determining a safe system of work (including when, where, and at what time work happens) or controlling the resources necessary to mitigate against risks, including the risks of one’s own oversights when under the pressure of work that has been arranged and set by somebody else.
Umm I know…
Grumpy Dad:
bobbya:
If you wonder why the jobs gone down the pan just read some of these posts slagging off a fellow driver, no camaraderie there ,no chance of us all sticking together is there,the firm is at fault for not having a Safe system of work in place for this task,why not slag them off instead.Isn’t it a drivers responsibility to ensure when raising a tank or tipper there’s sufficient clearance and no obstructions present ?
Was the driver told what his responsibilities were? There’s no point saying he’s responsible for something he was told nothing about.
Were the responsibilities stated in principle, rehearsed into a plausible work process that the employee could follow? You can tell me I’m responsible for juggling whilst I work, but actually applying the principle can be the hardest part.
Was he given enough time to follow and maintain the processes set? It is very frequent that bosses put pressure on employees not to follow processes - sometimes just by refusing to allow enough time for completion or to allow habits to be consistently followed.
We’ve all worked for firms that have a rule book that must be strictly followed, except for when a manager deems it would be too inconvenient, which is all the time.
If the employee is left to determine how he meets his own responsibilities, is he apparently of sufficient nouse, character and experience to be able to work out how to do so safely and lawfully (which might include a manager asking a driver whether he takes an active interest in health and safety, whether he has industry accreditations or has attended workshops, and so on), and is he given the resources (free of financial counter-pressure) to implement the safe system of work he has been expected to devise for himself.
It is almost always the case when someone says the “driver is responsible”, that in fact he was not remotely responsible for his own work, because it is not the habit of bosses to give employees real responsibilities and the resources to meet them in matters like health and safety. If nothing else it would mean every individual in the workforce getting paid time off to undergo health and safety training in order to meet their responsibilities effectively, whereas most businesses pay managers to do this (or nobody), not every single worker.
Darkside:
Umm I know…
And that’s the way it should be, that companies are liable for industrial accidents, or don’t you agree?
Rjan:
Darkside:
Umm I know…And that’s the way it should be, that companies are liable for industrial accidents, or don’t you agree?
Thats what I was trying to say,well put.
Rjan:
Darkside:
Umm I know…And that’s the way it should be, that companies are liable for industrial accidents, or don’t you agree?
So are you saying an employee has no responsibility to check they are working in a safe manner and should obey their bosses instructions without question?
bobbya:
Rjan:
Darkside:
Umm I know…And that’s the way it should be, that companies are liable for industrial accidents, or don’t you agree?
Thats what I was trying to say,well put.
But it wasn’t an accident, it was an act of stupidity
I know no one goes to work to get injured, and if the company is negligent they should be compensated.
I think the company in question could use the £300,000 in a better way, that would benefit their other employees as well, rather than giving it to bloke who didn’t know not to raise a tipper there…