Risk Assessments on the use of commercial lawn mowers

[m8internet]

Due to an incident I am investigating, does anyone have experience of compiling a Risk Assessment on the use of commercial grass cutters

My initial enquiries show the contractor has employers liability insurance, but no public liability insurance so a civil case against them is possible

All the employees, who operate the equipment, I have asked have never signed any formal training completion
None of them could tell me how large the fuel tank was or any of the legal requirements over them
They could demonstrate how to generally use the equipment
None of the employees were wearing eye protectors, which in my opinion would be required as the working blades were open to the elements (which I have never seen on a modern commercial lawn mower)

The employer had supplied the employees with "light work duty gloves"
None of the employees were wearing high visibilty clothing, nor ear protectors

I also inspected the vehicle present
The Ford Transit pickup had a small fire extinguisher (completely useless if one or more of the lawnmowers catches fire)
The trailer can hold up to three such grass cutters
There was also one additional 25 litre metal fuel tank
The total fuel would therefore be 100 litres, and as such would require a red hazard square, but neither the pickup nor trailer had such a fixing

At the companies office I asked to inspect a copy of the Risk Assessment, but was told to leave the premises...

[Deztroyer]

there is a specific document relating to such items

http://www.hsdinnovations.com/shop/s...on=show_detail

hth

regards

Dez

[m8internet]

I've found loads of documents online, that's not an issue
I am looking for someone that has experience of an actual Risk Assessment specific to these

[Stevel]

I've never completed a RA for a commercial grass cutter but I have read Method Statements and RA provided by our landscape gardeners.

As far as I recall they talked about appropriate PPE (Safety boots, glasses, hi viz jackets and hearing protection), trained and competent operators, Pre start checks on the equipment, maintenance of the equipment, their SOP in the event of an accident, their SOP for the fuel and fire fighting certification if there was a fire. There was a bunch of other stuff not relevant to the question. Remember though that this was their own RA provided to us.

I asked them to provide barriers when working in some areas of the site to separate them as pedestrians from the vehicles in the car parks. Their RA were low risk as I recall.

The RA must be suitable and sufficient. Generally if there is an accident it wasn't sufficient. The fact that they do not require their guys to wear eye protection may be valid if they can demonstrate that the risk was not foreseeable.

There is also no requirement to ask their employees to sign training documents. They must however train the guys and be able to demonstrate that they have done so. This could be done by a register of training for example. (A no no TBH but it could stand up I guess)

In terms of the public liability insurance it's irrelevant if pursuing a claim. If they don't have it and they are proved to be liable then the money will come from their own coffers. Otherwise I'll cancel ours tomorrow complete with it's £250,000 excess.

I have in excess of 1500 RA and sorry if you ask to see them I'll ask you to get off my land too. There are protocols for disclosure of documentation to a third party especially someone wandering in off the street.

The HSE are quite keen at the minute on non standard parts being fitted to industrial gardening equipment following an accident where somebody lost a leg when the petrol strimmer he was using failed. There was a Safety alert in the last two months or so. That is something that I would be checking too.

[keith1983]

Generally if there is an accident it wasn't sufficient. .

That's a very general statement, which to be fair I don't agree with. there are a million and one reasons that things can go wrong and without proper investigation you can't say why.


M8internet:

What is your interest in the accident? Do you work for the company who provided the equipment or an enforcement agency? I appreciate it's not very reassuring being told youre not seeing RA's but you don't mention why you're investigating the accident? Do you have nay experience in route cause analysis?

[Stevel]

That's a very general statement, which to be fair I don't agree with. there are a million and one reasons that things can go wrong and without proper investigation you can't say why.

Yep it's very general statement but it's a born of years of meeting with legal teams who can take a RA apart on the suitable and sufficient criteria.

Whenever there is a change to the process/personnel/equipment/legal requirements/known risk following a near miss for example etc. etc. there should be a review. Some of the assessments sent to me are years old.

Anybody who thinks that every single one of their RA dealing with every single one of the tasks and roles within the company is suitable and sufficient is deluding themselves. That's the point. The expected standard is way, way higher than produced by some companies.

It doesn't take too many pieces of cheese to line up to cause an accident.

[m8internet]

This company is one of the contractors I am involved with
I therefore have right to inspect any and all documents, even without notice (as defined in the contract)

However, on this occasion they did provide a copy of their own insurance, but could not find their public liability insurance
On further questioning they could not provide the latest Risk Assessment (I do have a copy which applies to the area of works as defined in the contract, and I need to check their latest copy which should be completed each day before work commences)

The contract has been suspended while I investigate the incident which also includes the local Fire Service and Local Authority
I already know the Local Authority have incurred some costs, plus the Fire Service may have some additional costs on top of the commercial call out fee (fixed at £1500)

The ironic thing is I was ON the premises at the time and witnesses the incident, I was the first respondent and checked this with the Fire Service
There were eight phone calls to the emergency services prior to the two fire appliances arriving after 7 minutes

[Stevel]

You mean that you are employing them as a contractor?

[keith1983]

Yep it's very general statement but it's a born of years of meeting with legal teams who can take a RA apart on the suitable and sufficient criteria.

Whenever there is a change to the process/personnel/equipment/legal requirements/known risk following a near miss for example etc. etc. there should be a review. Some of the assessments sent to me are years old.

Anybody who thinks that every single one of their RA dealing with every single one of the tasks and roles within the company is suitable and sufficient is deluding themselves. That's the point. The expected standard is way, way higher than produced by some companies.

It doesn't take too many pieces of cheese to line up to cause an accident.

I'm more than familiar with RA's and when they are required to be reviewed and I also agree than anyone thinking all of their RA's are spotless are likely to be wrong. I just think it is very presumtious to claim accidents are due to insufficent RA's. This may be the angle that legal teams are looking for but that doesn't mean it is necessarily the case.

[keith1983]

If it's contractors that work for you it does raise questions about how you select and monitor your contractors.