Maintenance worker loses lower leg in unguarded machinery accident

An engineering company was fined in a prosecution brought forward by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE), following an accident at work involving an unguarded machine
!n "anuary #$
th
, %ateshead &agistrates' (ourt fined &arill )td *#+,+++, with a *,++ victim
surcharge and *-+. in costs, after the firm admitted breaching the /rovision 0 1se of 2ork
E3uipment 4egulations ,--$, 4egulation ,, (,) 5his health and safety law relates to ensuring that
access to rotating stock bar and dangerous moving machinery parts is prevented, and to ensure
that dangerous moving machinery or rotating stock bars cannot activate when people are in a
'danger 6one'
5he prosecution related to an accident at work involving a .-7year7old maintenance worker from the
Stanley region !n !ctober ,,
th
, the worker was employed at the company's site in %ateshead's
8eilson 4oad when he suffered a serious personal in9ury
5he victim had been asked to analyse and repair a problem on a mechanical power press, which
was not working properly and had been stopped
At the top of the power press was a series of large7toothed gears that moved whenever the
machine completed a stroke 5hese cogs were not guarded when the maintenance worker was
repairing the machine
He reset a solenoid valve near to the gear train As the machine did not offer a lot of space for him
to work in, his right leg was trailing over the gear train and was in the danger area when the valve
reset
2hen the press began operating again, his right foot was dragged into the gears 5his caused the
foot to become crushed, leading to extensive in9uries that re3uired a lengthy stay in hospital
As a result of the accident at work, the employee's right leg was amputated below the knee He
re3uires ongoing physiotherapy and now uses a prosthetic leg He has been able to return to work
as a maintenance worker, but the number of tasks he can now conduct has been reduced
An investigation into the workplace accident by the HSE revealed that the gear train had not been
guarded for around two to three years before the incident occurred, and although staff had been
told to work near to the danger area, &arrill )td had continually neglected to ade3uately control the
health and safety ha6ards this posed
:t would have been easy to fix the machine, with appropriate guards easy to ac3uire, but the
company had failed to do so, the HSE revealed
HSE inspector /aul 2ilson said following the hearing that the company's negligence towards this
workplace safety issue had put people in needless danger, and had led to the maintenance worker's
life7changing in9uries
;5oo many incidents; occur during maintenance on machinery with missing guards and protective
decides, he argued 5hese incidents are easily avoided by taking suitable precautions to ensure
people cannot access dangerous moving parts, he added
&oving machinery personal in9uries are common in accident at work compensation claims, so
employers must take their obligations to ensure that all work e3uipment is safe seriously
(arol researches personal in9ury claims and other accident at work compensation claims on behalf
of a team of )ancashire no win no fee *,<++ cash advance solicitors