insurers and contributory negligence

[ivan]

I'm not sure about the exact status of HSE reccomendations for woodworking, but in my old profession (agriculture) if you chose to ignore guidance notes detailing best practice, and there was an accident...

1/ failing to follow published guidance could invalidate insurance or radically reduce the insurer's liability. (not much fun being incapacitated-self-employed with loss of earnings cover invalidated)
2/ in any ensuing HSE prosecution it was up to you to prove that your way was at least as safe as that recommended

What happens in this inductry?

Loss adjusted insurance cover after a serious accident may also affect the hobby woodworker too. If you have such cover, ignoring the issue won't ensure you get a payout when you need it most!

 

[Anonymous]

As a new employer, I feel its my duty to make my workshop as safe as possible. Technically as a ltd company me and my business partner are employees however its our business and sometimes you just run the risk, now we have an employee, he becomes my responsibility, esp as he's young and inexperienced, I would hate for an accident to happen and live with the knowledge I could have prevented it.
In my opinion, following HSE guidelines is reasonably simple (its all there on the net) but expensive, some parts only require you to show due diligence, in otherwords safer practices are being put in place over a period of time, others are immediate requirements.
For me taking on an employee will work out (with additional insurance, braking equipment, dust extraction and sprayshop changes) in the region of £6000, seems an enormous amount but once its done,its done and enables me to expand.

 

[Scrit]

HI Ivan

Exactly the same rukes exist. My missus works for one of the larger insurers and the routinely reduce compensation claims due to contributory negligence by the employee as well as go for partial recovery from the employer should major breaches in H&S regulkations be discovered.

I know that they are applying the same standards to self-employed wpoodworkers as well, so the old chestnut of "the regs don't apply to me, I'm self employed" is just so much humbug. The law requires that you take just as much care as an employee in a big firm.

As to the hobbyist, an insurer may decide that ifd you are using a "dangerous" machine in a poor manner and you have an accident that you have been contributory due to your own ignorance/negligence and thus reduce the compensation payment. I haven't seen much on this subject but I believe that machine woodworking could be classed as a "hazardous activity" in the same way that riding motorcycles, sky-diving and rock climbing are

For me taking on an employee will work out (with additional insurance, braking equipment, dust extraction and sprayshop changes) in the region of £6000, seems an enormous amount but once its done,its done and enables me to expand.

With respect, as a limited company as you say you and your business partner were already employers and this should alread have been done when you registered [-X

Scrit

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed Scrit that was my point really that as owners I cut corners but not with my employee.

 

[mr]

In the pro environment is there a requirement to have risk assessments on file and subject to constant monitoring and update? In my field every job requires risk assessments to be on file and available. In case of accident they will be required to be produced. To not have sufficient documentation available is to court almost certain prosecution following an accident should one occur - the insurance position becomes irrelevant almost. Particularly because many accidents result in fatalities.
Cheers Mike

 

[Scrit]

Agreed Scrit that was my point really that as owners I cut corners but not with my employee.

If you had a bad one they still potentially prosecute you (as director) for injuries inflicted on yourself (as employee) :roll:

In the pro environment is there a requirement to have risk assessments on file and subject to constant monitoring and update?

Yes, but it is recognised that the variety of tasks understkan is very greate and therefore insurers and the HSE seem willing to accept a general risk assessment coupled with a training and sign-off on competence. It is also necessary to have an accident book to recall all injuries, however minor, and to be able to demonstrate a pro-active approach to dealing with entries in that book as well as other feedback

Particularly because many accidents result in fatalities.

In woodworking most accidents are non-fatal and result in less than 3 days off work - the threshold for informing the HSE. Whilst more serious accidents do occur, e.g. amputation, fatalaties are fortunately not all that common.

Scrit

 

[lurker]

I'm not arguing with the basic points people are making, but there is some confusion regarding Criminal & civil law in some posts above.

HSE will "do" the employer and occasionally the employee for breaches of criminal law (H&S at work act). This is far rarer than most people might think.

Compo payouts & insurance companies are a matter of civil law.
If an accident happens usually the insurer will pay out Compo to the employee (injured) at whatever rate is set by the civil courts. If the insurer then feels the owner did not follow good H&S practice they will go after the owner for breach of contract (they sold the insurance on the understanding that the owner would use best practice).

 

[mr]

However breaches of the the regulations (for example work at height regulations 05) will generally result in prosecution of either individual or company. Insurance issues are completely separate as you say. As of this month Corporate Manslaughter is on the books meaning that companies whose gross negligence leads to the death of individuals will now face prosecution for manslaughter. I wonder how this would be applied to contractors. As a contractor I used to have a two million pounds public liability insurance policy many / most companies would not hire you without seeing the paperwork, similarly todays safety passports.
Cheers Mike

 

[lurker]

People get too worked up about HSE prosecuting. As I say its quite rare that they do. When they do its for really damn stupid things that and reasonable person or employer would not do.

Work at height for example: mainly working on fragile roofs with no protection. The rubbish about ladders that has been in papers over the last year does not come from HSE.

Don't get me started about safety passports :evil: - the biggest swindle in the construction trade for years.

No "reasonable person" need worry about corporate manslaughter. Its just to get the big boys who have been hiding behind a boardroom door. In fact it should level the playing field between large & small companies.

 

[mr]

I've not seen anything in the press about ladders in the last year myself. Figures for 03/04 ( I have none more recent to hand) show that there were 980 odd prosecutions out of 11000 odd notices issued. Those figures having stayed roughly the same since 2000 I don't expect them to have changed much in recent years. HSE rarely prosecute themselves - though they do on occasion, however local councils will prosecute more readily on H&S grounds. In any case prosecution is irrelevant, as the point is to avoid it. I was simply wondering what best practice regarding risk assessment might be in todays pro workshop. not sure why really 'tis irrelevant to me I was just wondering
Cheers Mike

 

[lurker]

Mike,

HSE & Local authorities divy up the various workplaces
Its HSE who would go after any woodworking outfit - none of LAs business.

Easiest, cheapest way to get a good H&S in place is to employ a Chartered professional much as you would employ an accountant.
Contact the Chartered institute of Occupational Safety & Health for one near you.

For a small (say up to 10 man) wood shop, I reckon I could put a good system in place for one days work plus a annual one day per year retainer to maintain & advise. Most of the cost can usually be clawed back in reduced Insurance premiums

Incidentally, a good H&S pro eats HSE inspectors for breakfast :evil: :evil:

Mods -I'm not touting business - far too busy in an entirely different field of H&S

 

[ivan]

My original post was an attempt to prise the safety issue away from an unfortunate photo closely connected with a rather nice plane...

I appreciate that fatal accidents are much rarer in workshops than on the farm - Agriculture is one of the most dangersous occupations in the UK as measured by HSE stats. Obviously the serious stuff attracts microscopic HSE examination and risk of prosecution. But loss adjusted or invalid insurance claims are far more common.

Thus, I thought it might be worth mentioning that in my old day job (Agric.), if I cut my finger(s) off by ignoring published, good practice guidance notes, whatever HSE decide to do, the insurer (if I have one) can point to the clause in my policy that I have just broken. When my bandaged hand stops me working, (for my insurer says the doctor must have signed me off fit) the cost will be more than just digital discomfort! Subsequent post accident £ loss (there was no prosecution) finished off two small outfits I knew of, so affecting their families too. House and home can also be at risk from that quick short cut..It looks as if it's much the same for woodworkers too.

 

[lurker]

Ivan,

A man after my own heart!

I spend my working life telling people to forget the legal and financial implications because the humanitarian costs are by far greater and the most important.