In the first of a new series on HSE prosecutions, barrister Robert Spicer explains why William Hare was responsible for a worker's fatal fall in 1998
In May 2003, at the Old Bailey, steel erection company William Hare was fined £75,000 plus £9000 costs following the death of an employee who had fallen 13m from an unsafe working platform.

The accident happened in April 1998. Brian Knights, a steel erector employed by William Hare, was helping to build an extension to the Imperial War Museum. This involved lifting channels (horizontal steel beams) onto high steel columns. Knights and a colleague had to fix the channels in place. As work progressed, a wooden staging board was placed across two of the beams and a ladder was placed on top of the board to enable the men to reach the next level.

On the day after the board was placed in position, the principal contractor warned William Hare's site supervisor it was unsafe as it had not been fitted with guard rails.

On the day of the fatal accident, Knights and a workmate needed to use the ladder elsewhere on the site. Knights climbed the ladder and untied it from the column to which it was attached. As he was descending the ladder, he accidentally stepped onto a part of the board that lay beyond the supporting beam. The board tipped and caused both men to fall. Knights was killed but decking installed on the second floor of the building broke his colleague's fall and he escaped with severe bruising.

Don't leave it to workers
The HSE prosecutor told the court that the accident happened because the employer had failed to provide a safe system for working at heights when fitting the channels into place. The method statement should have made it clear that a suitable staging board fitted with guard rails was needed to prevent workers from falling. The method statement said merely that guard rails should be used "where necessary". This put the burden on the employees themselves to decide whether the work required the use of guard rails.

The staging board was also unstable, having not been properly secured to the supporting beams. It was also too narrow. Double-width staging board was required.

William Hare had also failed adequately to supervise Knights and his colleague. He was wearing his safety harness but it wasn't attached to the structure, for instance.

HSE Inspector Alec Ferguson said: "The method statement for the scaffolding work being undertaken at the Imperial War Museum was not sufficiently detailed to cover the erection of the steel channels, which led to an improvised system being developed on site.

"This dreadful accident has highlighted the need for the most detailed planning and preparation for all high-risk activities such as steel erection. This accident could have been avoided if the company had specified a safe system of work undertaken with suitable supervision."

Prosecuting to the hilt
Note the incident happened more than five years ago. In mitigation for William Hare, who pleaded guilty, it was stated that the company continuously reviews site safety procedures and carries out regular health and safety training for supervisors.

Why did the HSE prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, rather than the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, which carry lower penalties and contain specific rules about tying off ladders and providing guardrails? We could conclude that the HSE, as prosecutor, judged that the William Hare case concerned more than a technical breach of safety regulations and that it showed a graver lapse of employer responsibility, for which the more heavyweight 1974 Act is appropriate. A manslaughter charge might also have been considered.

Quick facts

Company: William Hare, one the UK’s largest steel erection companies What happened: Streel erector Brian Knights from Norwich died after he fell 13m off a staging board while building an extension to London’s Imperial War Museum Result:
William Hare was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £9,000 costs under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act) Key findings: A vague method statement left it to workers to decide on basic safety precautions. Lax supervision allowed them to scale heights with unattached harnesses
  • Section 2(1) of the HSW Act states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”

    • Source

    Construction Manager

    Postscript

    Robert Spicer is a barrister specialising in employment law and health and safety, practising at Frederick Place Chambers, in Bristol.