£150k fine after fatal fall

McDermott Bros Contractors Ltd (MBCL), a London-based construction company, was fined £150,000 at Southwark Crown Court in January. The prosecution, brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), followed its investigation into the death of Mr Vincent Dooley at a building site on 4 December 2000.

Dooley, a 54-year old carpenter, was working for MBCL at the 280 Bishopsgate development just outside the City of London. He was working on the 14th floor of the building, and was busy striking out timber and plywood shuttering around a hole that had been cast in the floor.

Lessons to learn

Dooley fell through the hole some four metres to the floor below. He suffered severe head injuries and died later that day. The court found that MBCL had failed in its duty of care towards Mr Dooley by exposing him to risks to his safety.

At the time of the incident no measures were in place to prevent Dooley’s fall, although a general method statement had been prepared that indicated that safety harness would be worn.

Speaking after the case, HSE investigating inspector Neil Stephens, said: “This is a very sad time for Dooley’s family, especially as the final hearing of the case came so close to the anniversary of his death.

“The case does however provide some very valuable lessons about working at height which if put into practice should help to prevent this kind of incident occurring.

“First, those who are responsible for planning work should carefully assess the work and decide what safety measures are appropriate. There is a hierarchy of control measures for working at height and the use of personal fall arrest equipment. Harnesses are at the bottom of this hierarchy. Harnesses are almost always a last resort measure and properly constructed working platforms and/or guardrails are nearly always preferable.

Manage the risks

“Secondly, principal contractors should always look critically at any method statement which specifies the use of harnesses to check whether this is the safest option. Where, ultimately, harnesses are chosen then there should be a detailed method statement and a high degree of supervision to make sure it is followed.

“Lastly, all those who use a harness should have proper training, which should include how to inspect and wear it, what constitutes a suitable anchorage, and the limitations of harness use.

“Sensible health and safety is about managing risks; working at height is a well-known hazard, and not just in construction.”

MBCL, of South Crescent, Newham, east London, pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSAW) at the City of London Magistrates’ Court on 29 October 2004. At Southwark Crown Court on 18 January 2005, MBCL was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £15,175.01 costs.

Section 2(1) of the HSWA 1974 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.” The maximum penalty that can be imposed at a Crown Court for a breach of section 2(1) of the HSWA is an unlimited fine.