Working at height...

A man was killed not so long ago falling off a step ladder less the 2m and impaling himself on a pole he had placed through the cable reel he was using. The company involved no longer permits the use of step ladders.

That's perhaps a bit of an extreme response. If one of their employees were to be killed in a car accident, I doubt that they'd ban all use of cars. There has to be some realistic assessment of risk.
 
I would say there is no minimum height .

It is not the fall that injurers but the landing.
A man was killed not so long ago falling off a step ladder less the 2m and impaling himself on a pole he had placed through the cable reel he was using. The company involved no longer permits the use of step ladders.

I work (consult) for a company that banned ladders. They have their reasons, but a blanket ban is SO impractical. Since much of my work involves brief inspections, for which staging would make no sense at all, they grant me exceptions. Very often there is simple no space for a rolling ladder, staging, or really anything other than a ladder and/or rope access.

It's about training, thinking it through, and using the apropriate gear properly.
 
I have the job of cleaning, compounding, polishing and waxing the topsides of Mirage... and she is a whole lot taller than Triola was.

I have some scaffold boards doubled up that I place on top of heavy duty trestles.

mKtCzRvl.png


Does anyone use a fall harness when working at height like this? I mean, I never have done in the past, and I have been working on boats all my life without 'falling off' stuff... however with age comes a bit more caution that I don't necessarily bounce...

My idea is to use a rope slung from bow to aft, and then clip on and slide along with something like this? Full Body Safety Harness Kit, Fall Arrest 5-Point Harness Set, Aerial Work Fall Protection Adjustable Belt with Hook, Universal Personal Protective Equipment (Small Buckle,3m): Amazon.co.uk: DIY & Tools

Your proposal is not safe.
 
That's perhaps a bit of an extreme response. If one of their employees were to be killed in a car accident, I doubt that they'd ban all use of cars. There has to be some realistic assessment of risk.
I work (consult) for a company that banned ladders. They have their reasons, but a blanket ban is SO impractical. Since much of my work involves brief inspections, for which staging would make no sense at all, they grant me exceptions. Very often there is simple no space for a rolling ladder, staging, or really anything other than a ladder and/or rope access.

It's about training, thinking it through, and using the appropriate gear properly.

I agree its a excessive reaction. It does make changing light bulbs expensive.

Except in the case of a car accident the company is not usually liable - the driver is responsible for his own safety.
 
I agree its a excessive reaction. It does make changing light bulbs expensive.

Except in the case of a car accident the company is not usually liable - the driver is responsible for his own safety.

Isn't the user of a stepladder responsible for his own safety too?
 
The company is responsible for both the car and the ladder if it is on company time, and "company time" can be broadly interpreted. This is true whether or not it is your car/ladder and whether or not you are on company property.

I've heard of people falling down staircases and sustaining awful injuries. Do you think companies should ban staircases in their buildings?
 
I would say there is no minimum height .

It is not the fall that injurers but the landing.
A man was killed not so long ago falling off a step ladder less the 2m and impaling himself on a pole he had placed through the cable reel he was using. The company involved no longer permits the use of step ladders.
But they still allow poles to be left through the cable reels! :unsure:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pvb
Isn't the user of a stepladder responsible for his own safety too?
Yes
But if driving a car or van the driver has greater responsibility. eg If driving a car with a tyre with insufficient tread and stopped / prosecuted it is the drivers fault and not the company.
 
Yes
But if driving a car or van the driver has greater responsibility. eg If driving a car with a tyre with insufficient tread and stopped / prosecuted it is the drivers fault and not the company.

Yes and at the same time no. In the US, the driver could be fined for not completing the pre-trip, but the company will also be fined (because the driver did not do the pre-trip and possibly because they did not train sufficiently or enforce behavior) and sued if there are damages. The UK could be different, but I doubt it. The company retains the greater portion of the responsibility. If it is a commercial vehical, I'm betting the company gets the larger part of the fine (the driver is the company inspector, therefore it was also the company's fault).

Drinking or bad driving are on the driver. But if he hits someone... who are they going to sue? Yup. The company.

Regarding a ladder fall, the company's responsibility would be adjusted according to training and enforcement of policies. The company will always be responsible for direct damages and the cost of the injury, no matter how careless the act.
 
Yes and at the same time no. In the US, the driver could be fined for not completing the pre-trip, but the company will also be fined (because the driver did not do the pre-trip and possibly because they did not train sufficiently or enforce behavior) and sued if there are damages. The UK could be different, but I doubt it. The company retains the greater portion of the responsibility. If it is a commercial vehical, I'm betting the company gets the larger part of the fine (the driver is the company inspector, therefore it was also the company's fault).

Drinking or bad driving are on the driver. But if he hits someone... who are they going to sue? Yup. The company.

Regarding a ladder fall, the company's responsibility would be adjusted according to training and enforcement of policies. The company will always be responsible for direct damages and the cost of the injury, no matter how careless the act.

I am sure there are differences between the laws in the UK and the USA.
 
As a company car driver in the UK I have to sign that Im responsible for the car, checking it, booking it in at the correct time for service. I’ve been instructed not to speed and not use phone etc and we all have trackers that report to senior managers speeding and erratic driving. The company have done all they can to ensure good behaviou.
 
Yes and at the same time no. In the US, the driver could be fined for not completing the pre-trip, but the company will also be fined (because the driver did not do the pre-trip and possibly because they did not train sufficiently or enforce behavior) and sued if there are damages. The UK could be different, but I doubt it. The company retains the greater portion of the responsibility. If it is a commercial vehical, I'm betting the company gets the larger part of the fine (the driver is the company inspector, therefore it was also the company's fault).

Drinking or bad driving are on the driver. But if he hits someone... who are they going to sue? Yup. The company.

Regarding a ladder fall, the company's responsibility would be adjusted according to training and enforcement of policies. The company will always be responsible for direct damages and the cost of the injury, no matter how careless the act.

As MartynG has said, there are big differences in regulations between the UK and the USA. I'd like to think that the UK has escaped the worst of the "blame culture", but I think we're catching up. Add in the "woke culture" too, and there are interesting times ahead. Who'd have thought that the word "niggling" was racist? Only the Americans.
 
As a company car driver in the UK I have to sign that Im responsible for the car, checking it, booking it in at the correct time for service. I’ve been instructed not to speed and not use phone etc and we all have trackers that report to senior managers speeding and erratic driving. The company have done all they can to ensure good behaviou.

It isn't really about that (driver care) or blame culture. The driver had an accident, and if it was on company business, he was a part of the company at that time and the liability falls on the company, even if it was an accident involving some level of carelessness. He was part of the company and would not otherwise have been there. Is it right that you take full personal responsibility for any mistake you make while in the service of the business? Of course not, since you also did not relieve full benefit. The liability of a manager or heavy equipment operator would be utterly unreasonable. As a person you have responsibility, but if I have you drive my truck, on my behalf, for my profit, part of the responsibility is unavoidably mine. The only way all of the responsibility is yours is if you are a trucking company for hire. And that is a big part of why companies contract out some types of work.

Yes, the company may have done all they could to insure good behavior, but accidents happen and they instructed you to do something with risk associated with it. If the company will not insure me when operating a crane, I'm damn sure not going to operate the crane. I know I can screw up, and I'm not taking on that responsibility, not all on my own. That is one differrence between an employee and a contractor.
 
Top