Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd successfully overturned a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) notice through a tribunal.
- The case centred around the tragic accident in Hertfordshire, leading to an employee’s death during road maintenance.
- HSE had alleged inadequate risk assessments, stating they did not consider road speed and type.
- The tribunal, after reviewing extensive evidence, found Ringway’s procedures adequate and cancelled the notice.
- The incident’s driver, found to be under drug influence, faced legal repercussions.
In a significant legal development, Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd emerged victorious in its appeal to rescind a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) improvement notice concerning a fatal incident during road maintenance works. The case stemmed from the tragic death of Michael Bennett, an employee who was fatally injured while attending to hazardous road conditions in Hertfordshire. The accident occurred when a drug-influenced driver lost control of his vehicle, resulting in a collision that claimed Bennett’s life.
The HSE had issued an improvement notice to Ringway, alleging that the company failed in its duty to conduct proper risk assessments for the road maintenance task. According to the HSE, the assessments did not adequately account for critical factors such as the speed and type of the road involved, suggesting a breach of health and safety regulations.
Challenging this assertion, Ringway contended that their risk assessment procedures were sufficient and that the issued improvement notice did not consider the nuances of dynamic risk assessment adequately. Over a comprehensive seven-day hearing, which involved an examination of over 1,000 pages of documentation and pivotal dash cam footage of the accident, the tribunal adjudicated the matter.
Employment Judge Kathryn Ramsden ruled in favour of Ringway, stating that the HSE had not sufficiently demonstrated that the supervisory mechanisms or monitoring of the emergency standby crews were lacking or breached regulation standards. The generic risk assessments, combined with supervisory decisions regarding staffing and tasks, were deemed suitable and sufficient under the circumstances.
Judge Ramsden further articulated that any perceived inadequacies in dynamic risk assessment did not constitute a breach of the relevant health and safety laws as they pertain to employer duties under Regulation 3(1) of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. She underscored the principle that responsibility for employee safety cannot be shifted onto the employees themselves, as this would undermine the protective intent of the regulation.
Moreover, in the wake of this legal outcome, another significant development unfolded in a separate court case concerning the driver responsible for the accident. The driver received a custodial sentence for driving offences, including operating a vehicle without a proper licence or insurance and having consumed substances such as cocaine, cannabis, and diazepam, which contributed to the fatal mishap.
The tribunal’s decision underscores the complexity of assessing dynamic risks and the robust legal scrutiny such cases undergo.
