• Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    SENTENCING DILEMMA IN OVERHEAD CABLE DEATH CASE

    Grab lorry operator electrocuted during deliver of roofing materials

    Blackford (Newbury) Ltd, of Newbury, formerly Harris Roofing Supplies Ltd has been prosecuted after a new employee was electrocuted whilst operating a lorry mounted crane. Anthony Milani, aged 26, died when the crane came into contact with an overhead power cable on a Hampshire farm on 14 August 2007.

    Mr Milani joined the company as an HGV driver and warehouseman in April 2007 and was shown how to use the Hiab crane by the senior warehouseman who was not a competent trainer.

    He was delivering roofing materials and parked beneath the three overhead 11Kv cables. He deployed the nearside stabiliser (both should have been used) and when he moved the jib it struck one of the cables. He died instantly.

    The senior warehouseman was aware of the overhead electric cables at the site but did not “consider them to be a hazard”. He was unaware of safety guidance concerning overhead power lines or the necessary training of crane drivers.

    Signs warning of overhead cables had been removed several weeks earlier by the site owners.

    Proper training was scheduled before death

    Blackford (Newbury) Ltd, of Hambridge Road, Newbury, formerly Harris Roofing Supplies Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 at Southampton Crown Court. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs. After the hearing, HSE Inspector Dennis MacWilliam, said:

    “Proper training, simple checks and procedures could have prevented this horrific incident. Tragically, Mr Milani had been booked-in to do a professional course in handling lorry mounted cranes in the month he died.

    The company failed to provide suitable and sufficient training and supervision for Mr Milani in the used of Hiab cranes and especially the risk from overhead power lines. They also failed to ensure lifting operations were properly planned and hazards identified.

    Delivery arrangements at clients’ premises should also have been checked from time to time.”

    Judge placed in difficult position on appropriate sentence

    At the sentencing hearing at Southampton Crown Court on Friday 11th March 2011, the Recorder expressed grave concerns about having to fix a fine, where the defendant company was apparently insolvent with no material assets.

    He was expected to impose a fine on a shell, in the knowledge that the fine is unlikely ever to be paid, and any fine will be against public policy. He made the following remarks:

    “the core failure was the lack of adequate training to operate the crane safely and in particular a failure to recognise this site as a potential danger given the overhead cables. Plainly the cables were low enough to touch. On this particular day he was only using one stabilizer which shows the lack of training. Those failures are significantly aggravating features of this breach.

    I have to impose a financial penalty on the company. I have had regard to [Sentencing] guidelines at para 16. I also looked at para 19 (viii) – bad cases should be put out of business. Para 25 – level of fines. R v Howe 1999 – any fine should reflect the gravity of the offence and the means of the offender. The penalty should reflect public disquiet at unnecessary loss of life.

    Unhappily the authorities give me no guidance on the situation I am faced with. The assets have been sold. The sale took place after the incident and when the enquiries were still current. There is plainly a suspicion that the sale had a motive to remove assets but leave liability for this death with the company that then employed the deceased. This has been confirmed by the letter 3rd Feb 2011 – purchaser was advised that the transaction would be restructured given the fatality.

    The conclusion of forensic accountant is that the defendant company is currently insolvent and has no material assets. The reality that I am faced with today is that the defendant is not trading, has no material assets and is currently insolvent.

    I have a dilemma:- do I fine the defendant company the appropriate level of fine in the knowledge that it has no assets to meet it or do I fine it a very low amount which is an affront to public concern. Even if fine was at low end there is nothing for me to believe it would be paid.

    In the circumstances, I think I should impose a fine at the level I think is appropriate for the offence. It is the lesser of the 2 evils. The merit of this approach is that if this case receives publicity, the level of the fine will alert others of the seriousness with which courts reflects Health & Safety.

    Given this, there will be a fine of £50000 and an order for costs of £20000.

    If this decision is to be reviewed then a full transcript of this hearing should be made available so the higher court can see the dilemma. It may be that a higher court could give some guidance”.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 13th JUNE 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th June 2018

    DIRECTOR FAILED COMPLY WITH HSE PROHIBITION

    Precautions not taken to prevent excavation collapse and falling

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th June 2018

    SCAFFOLD NOT TO INDUSTRY STANDARD OR DESIGN

    Specialist and contractor in court over unsafe work at height

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th June 2018

    ROAD WORKER RUN OVER BY ROAD ROLLER

    Reversing alarm not working and warning light not fitted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    CLIENT AND SURVEYOR FINED OVER ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey proved inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    FATALITY: ROAD WORKER DRAGGED ALONG ROAD

    Night shift worker loses life when struck by road sweeping vehicle

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    CDM PRINCIPAL DESIGNERS AVOID HSE ENFORCEMENT

    Regulator enforcement database reveals few notices involve CDM PDs

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    PROPERTY MANAGERS FINED WITH CONTRACTOR

    Defendants failed to check for asbestos during soffit replacement works

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    EXCAVATION CAUSED RETAINING WALL COLLAPSE

    Precautions not taken to secure stability of free-standing wall

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    OVERHEAD CABLE STRIKE FIRM FINED £500,000+

    Inadequate system caused risk of harm despite lack of worker injury

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    CDM 2015 PRINCIPAL DESIGNER FINED OVER FIRE RISK

    PD and PC failed to comply with CDM 2015 responsibilities

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    SENTENCING GUIDELINES UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

    Lawyer argues guidelines undermine reduction in ‘regulatory burden’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    PANEL STRUCK WORKMAN DURING LIFTING OPERATION

    Third party contractor falls victim of poor lift planning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    DIRECTOR LED HAZARDOUS WORK AT HEIGHT

    Three occasions when work lacked suitable and sufficient precautions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RISK ASSESSED BUT CONTROLS FOUND WANTING

    Joiner fell through unprotected opening on roof of new building

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RIBA CRITICAL OF HACKITT REVIEW FINAL REPORT

    High rise residential review dismissed as “major missed opportunity”

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    CONSTRUCTION SECTOR DEATHS: THE ‘BIG THREE’

    HSE in-year fatalities for 2017/18 may indicate upward trend

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th May 2018

    SCAFFOLDING SITE ACCIDENTS AT RECORD LOW

    NASC Annual Report reveals all time low in 2017 incidents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    DUMPER TRUCK HAND-BRAKE NOT MAINTAINED

    Workman injured when pinned against stack of concrete blocks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    SPARE POWER INTERLOCK KEY CAUSED DEATH

    Dangerous machinery safety precautions defeated for maintenance tasks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th May 2018

    COLLAPSED CAR PARK WAS UNDER REPAIR

    Rusted steel supports triggered collapse of fascia and floor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    DUMPER OVERTURN CAUSED FATAL INJURIES

    Precautions during spoil heap creation were inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    HARDWOOD DUST CONTROL NOT MAINTAINED

    Manufacturer failed to examine and test local extraction system

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    SCAFFOLD CONTRACTOR OVERLOOKED MAJOR HAZARD

    Well-known risk unidentified during scaffold erection project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    THREE FIRMS FINED £1/2M FOR FRAGILE RISK FAILURES

    Fall through rooflight hazard poorly planned and managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd May 2018
    Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data