AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

F CASE THREE

11th March 2010, Page 23
11th March 2010
Page 23
Page 23, 11th March 2010 — F CASE THREE
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Council. and operator fined following dea

A LOCAL AUTHORITY and a demolition company have been fined a total of £105,000 plus costs I after a council employee was killed by a reversing truck.

The Health and Safety Executive brought the prosecutions after council employee, Gordon Duffield, was knocked down by an eight-wheeled tipper as it delivered to a site in Rotherham in May 2007 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £18,250 costs after pleading guilty at Doncaster Crown Court to a section 2(1) breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Brocklebank & Company (Demolition) of Sheffield, the tipper operator, was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £12,000 costs after it pleaded guilty to a breach of section 3(1) of the same Act.

John Rowe, HSE principal inspector, said the council had a duty to protect its employees: "Yet vehicle movements at the site were uncontrolled, despite the fact that tippers had to reverse its length."

He added that no individual had been given the responsibility to direct the movement and unloading of the lorry, and that the council was also aware the worker was partially deaf.

"It [the council] had made no assessment of his suitability to continue as a road v he said "Similarly, the contractc case IBrocklebank I had f take all reasonably pra steps to protect those at from the risk of being reversing vehicle."


comments powered by Disqus