View report page

In the other, a builder's young labourer was removing a window when the glass shattered
and a piece of glass penetrated his chest. At the inquest a verdict of accidental death was
returned.
SOME OTHER REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED ACCIDENTS
1. A young shop assistant had his arm crushed in a goods conveyor. A slat had been missing
from the moving belt and the youth put his hand in this gap. A more serious injury was
avoided by the belt being immediately switched off. A warning letter in strong terms was sent
to the owners.
2. A warehouseman got his head jammed between the roof of a lift and the floor on which he
was standing. Holes had been broken in the woodwork surrounding the lift frame so that the
gate mechanism could be operated irrespective of the lift position. Normally the lift gates
will only open when the lift floor coincides with the floor level. The warehouseman had
operated the lift mechanism in this dangerous manner and on opening the gate found that the
lift was below floor level. He then lay on the floor and put his head and arm into the lift
to reach the gripper mechanism inside the lift. The lift then moved down, not up, as he
hoped, and his head was trapped. He released the gripper mechanism almost immediately and
as a result the lift stopped and his head was only slightly crushed. Another worker had the
presence of mind to wedge a porter's trolley under the lift and levered it sufficiently for
the warehouseman to be dragged out. The victim was lucky to escape with a bruised head, the
loss of some teeth and shock. The lift, on inspection, was found to be in a very bad condition,
partly due to abuse by employees and partly due to poor maintenance. All works necessary to
make the lift safe were immediately carried out.
New Regulations laying down strict requirements for lifts and hoists come into force in
1969 and will, it is hoped, obviate this kind of accident. (See later notes on lifts and
hoists).
3. A warehouseman had three fingers severed by a fork lift truck. Uneven distribution of a
load caused the forks of a lifting truck to tilt. The warehouseman saw this happening and
instinctively put out his hand to steady the forks. The small fork wheels retracted on
pressing the ground and his hand was pressed onto the platform with the dead weight of the
forks and their load. Three fingers were severed. As all fork lift drivers were fully
instructed in the proper use of their equipment by the company concerned, no action was taken
over this accident other than informal advice.
OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS
Certain occupations have a high accident ratio. This is revealed by the annual accident
figures. Most accidents are due to falls, but during the year there were three accidents due
to cellar flaps falling on to hands or feet; four cutting accidents to butchers boning meat;
and no less than thirteen accidents involving loading or unloading of goods from delivery
lorries. The latter figures exclude numerous other accidents from loading goods at places
other than lorries.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON PARTICULAR ASPECTS OF ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY FOP COMPLIANCE
This aspect of the work still causes more administrative difficulty than any other.
Where a building is in single occupation the responsibility for compliance is generally laid
upon the occupier. In an area like Islington, there are a large number of premises in multioccupation.
Shops are often situated beneath dwelling accommodation and offices often share
premises with factories and other businesses. In this type of building it is often difficult
to find out who is responsible for ensuring that the works necessary under the Act are
carried out. A shop manager, for example, may have no idea who is the owner of the property;
whilst in office blocks, there are often ground leases, sub-leases and dual occupation of
the same office accommodation.
47