Lawyers and Health and Safety - sorry NB

A triumph of common sense over legislation! Actually a lot of these directives are nothing to do with the government per se, but are handed out by maniacal insurance companies who want to remove all risk of having to pay out any money to anyone, ever, however unlikely. Most of the tales of ludicrous H&S insurance claims are urban myths, and few, even of the american ones, are accompanied by a "guilty" verdict.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I'm glad someone sees the truth in all the lawyer bashing!
Like I keep telling people all you see is a 3rd hand story or a tabloid article about someone "is thinking of sueing" or "will take legal advice"
What you don't see, as Dave_white said is that none of these ever really get to court and those that do invariably lose and even ones that win on a technicality often don't get awarded costs which is a nice legal way of saying, "yes you've found a technical loophole, and I have to award you a few grand, but you will have to pay your own legal fees which are more than the award, so bugger off and don't waste my time again"

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
It\'s a bit early, but . .

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practise religious or secular traditions at all;

PLUS

A fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Britain great, (not to imply that Britain is necessarily greater than any other country), and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual orientation of the wisher.

(Disclaimer: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher who assumes no responsibility for any unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the holiday spirit.)


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Mrs Sailorman had the same responce in tescos, had to wait soooooo long nearly left without then.
WHAT EVER IS HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY.

CYCLEISTS HAVE TAKEN TO CRASH HELMETS ( NORMALLY BLACK) WEAR DARK CLOTHING AS WELL.

RATHER THAN NO HELMET + DAY-GLO BELT OR JACKET & GOOD CYCLE LIGHTS that would mean less likely to be run-down as the motorist has a chance to see them

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
we had a little chappie from the hse on a site some weeks ago he caught a roofer using an angle-grinder to cut roof tiles. took them to a site office & instructed them on the requirements for such a task. i walked into the office as he stated that "300 OF US " r killed each year on building sites, i asked him what the hse were doing about the 5,000 the nhs kill each year with MRSA, he was lost for words

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by sailorman on 03/11/2004 19:23 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
In the serviced offices where I work washing up liquid is banned! H&S say its dangerous! So we 'recycle' mugs cos we can't wait for the dishwasher to be put on (only permitted to be done by their staff)... we're just waiting for the day when everyone goes down with a dicky tummy - its a mad mad world.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
<font size=1>>the HSE is the body which determines the 'reasonable' lengths that people must go to and offer the guidelines.
When prosecutions occur they are proseuctions by the HSE (using the CPS lawers) NOT lawsuits by private individuals.</font size=1>


I humbly beg to differ...

I believe the major failing is that the HSE nor HSC DO NOT determine what 'reasonable' means, and leave this open to argument. The older HSE guidance is pretty prescriptive, but the newer revisions are (IMHO) becoming more and more non-commital, with phrases like "reasonable measures", etc. remaining in the guidance.

This could possibly be OK in criminal law, but in civil law, it appears almost impossible to pin down (I believe the burden of proof is different?). If the HSE issued more definitive guidance, this would not be the case.

Insurance co's deal with civil claims, and will offer a settlement out of court unless the cost of fighting and winning a case is less. Because of the vaugeries of civil law, I believe they need to have a cast iron case to consider fighting it. Costs are recovered through insurance premiums, insurance co's make a profit.

I was listening to a speech from one of the HSC commissioners earlier today, and he mentioned the business of "health & safety" banning conkers in schools. He dismissed this as nothing to do with HSC or HSE, just the silly requirements of insurance companies. I was bursting to point out that the insurance co's only make these demands because of the way the legislation / guidance can be interpreted, but he stepped down without taking questions.

This also produces a self perpetuating tightening of "reasonableness". E.g. one school sees fit to ban conkers, therefore it could be seen that a school that didn't do the same wouldn't be exercising its duty of care to the maximum. Little Johnny breaks a finger playing conkers - potential civil case against school; out of court settlement; conkers banned everywhere; and on to the next. The only force counter to this is individuals being bold enough to stick their necks out and take a risk.

Heard John Humphries (spit) interviewing teachers representative a few weeks ago. Rep's statement was that if teachers followed guidelines, they should not be at risk from criminal prosecution. This was accepted as an end to the matter. What needed to be pointed out was that it is a civil prosecution which is the great unknown (Humphries should extact his head from the bodily orifice he talks through and do some research).
Incidentally, I'm not a lawyer, teacher or insurance person - I work in industry, and yes, I insist on method statements and risk assessments, and yes I spend an hour inducting a contractors who've come to do a 15 minute job. These aren't negotiable. But I also concur that the emphasis is almost on the peripheral, easy to spot issues, rather than potentially more serious problems, and I agree that something needs to be done to moderate the civil claims.


Phew!

Rant over - I feel better now!

Andy

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
cor. how many has he got? How much do they cost? And erm, why did he need to explode a rose bush? Mind you, roses are a bit dangerous with spiky nasty surbversive spikey bits. Was it just one rose bush, or (justifiable, i reckon) a whole secretive PLOT of roses almost certainly planning to rise up in the spring?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Don't know where he gets his figures from either. Total anual deaths on construction sites has been round or about 100 for the 25 years that I have been in the industry. 85 last year.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I didnt think that the H&SE inspectors did much in the way of inspecting now. I thought that they only did "Audits" when seriously, dangerous occurances were reported and prosecutions. The routine safety elements and inspections are now done by the local Councils who now have large departments responsible to the local Principle Environmental health officer (the Dan).

The main purpose of the H & safety act is to protect life, reduce the amount, and thus the cost, of hospital attendance(to the economy).

The WHO set a target for the reduction of many of the worlds illnesses as well as environmental issues. so that member states could try to achieve them. Maesothielioma being one of these and those levels are what we are striving to attain. I am not sure that we are going about it the right way by taking the responsibility away from the individual. I believe that more education is needed and a total ban of noxious substances at source. We are however taking it too far when drinking water cannot be discharged into a ditch because of the chlorine levels and actually constitutes pollution?
Rob

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The real bo**ocks is the HSE which enforces all the EU Stupid Rules and Regs. Sensibly, no other country bothers.

The whole thing is OTT!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
If I recall this rightly, the most dangerous (ie. death rate) job in Britain is working on a trawler.

This is followed by being in the merchant navy.

Being in the Armed Forces is about 10th, though of course this is only an average, I wouldn't be at all surprised that the Armed Forces is No.1 at the moment.

But where are the HSE inspectors when it involves being at sea, or being at the scene of a pub brawl, or attending a warehouse fire, or being within range of enemy fire? Or even better, fighting a fire at sea whilst being within range of enemy fire? Or giving first aid to someone whilst receiving enemy fire?

No doubt their risk assessments would not allow them to be in such areas to conduct such research in the first place. It would be too dangerous.

My point is? I dunno, as usual.


<hr width=100% size=1>It could have been worse - it could have been me.
 
>>> What - so the sharks can see you ?

Lawyers don't have to worry about this. As a matter of professional courtesy sharks never attack lawyers.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
No, it's not the lawyers. It's down to two things:

1. the greed of members of the public who see an injury as hitting the jackpot. the no win no fee system simply means they can do it without risk. the lawyers are exploiting a market opportunity created by the government.

2. my great bugbear - the media cry of 'this must never happen again'. it always makes good copy to scream for legislation to ban anything that has ever caused an accident and it results in all the restrictions we moan about on this forum.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top