Avoiding compensation claims

[Sonar]

Originally Posted by chewy

Have you seen the price of Ullman seats, pointless buying them if you don't they would be a real benefit.

I am going for the woopie cushions they always give a good laugh.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by chewy

pointless buying them if you don't they would be a real benefit.

thats kind of what I said. Lets try it a different way cost is not the reason they are not routinely used on coded vessels used for "pleasure trips" - its that they wouldn't eliminate injuries.

[chewy]

Originally Posted by Polwart

It is the disproportion between the sacrifice and the risk reduction that determines practicality. Permanently disability balanced against say £30k on safety equipment may not be disproportionate. The fact that the £30k might put you out of business is irrelevant - it simply means you need to put your prices up to offer a safe service, or accept that you can't work in that arena.

I don't think it does, what it means is you research the market your entering, find out how high the risk is of injuring people is then decide if the outlay for the seats will significantly reduce the risk.
If what your saying is true then every RIB ride company should have shock mitigation seating fitted.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by Polwart

We might need to agree to disagree - but I am certain that reasonably practical does not always mean commercially viable. Here's what HSE say:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm

In particular “‘Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ … a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.”

It is the disproportion between the sacrifice and the risk reduction that determines practicality. Permanently disability balanced against say £30k on safety equipment may not be disproportionate. The fact that the £30k might put you out of business is irrelevant - it simply means you need to put your prices up to offer a safe service, or accept that you can't work in that arena.

Alas the HSE dont have a clue when it comes to being sued for big money (neither does the Sun deciding in a headline that something is a deathtrap, or the bloke in the pub, or dare I say does Polwart).

My quip about Ulmans was exactly that a quiip

it is back to the interpretation of the law by a judge - not some HSE waffle. HSE is good at waffling about how to avoid injury etc - not the compensation claims that arise after it .........clue is in the title - Avoiding Compensation Claims. Not avoiding injury on a boat.

I'm off now... had enough

[chewy]

Originally Posted by PeterM

I'm off now... had enough

Wait for me!

[Poly]

Originally Posted by bedajim

In July there are some new EU rules about vibration etc and taking care of workers etc?

EUROPEAN UNION HUMAN VIBRATION DIRECTIVE

So does that mean that you will have to provide Suspension seats at least for crew if not everyone on board as a duty of care ?
+ start again with risk assessments etc

Jim

Jim - my understanding was this is not actually a new set of rules, and whole body vibration / shock should already be part of the risk assessment. Time has been allowed (5 yrs?) for employers to become fully compliant though - which is about to run out. Some sectors have longer (but not marine?). Some people will interpret it as meaning you need suspension seats others will take a more practical approach and remember that the loud stick also has a lot to do with harsh landings! I think the biggest problem is no one really knows what the "cut off limits" relate to, and how these translate to what people experience at sea out of sight of the office. I wonder if you can create an iPhone App to measure the instantaneous and average shock on a person?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by PeterM

it is back to the interpretation of the law by a judge - not some HSE waffle.

doh you should have read my link - that's a quote from the judge and is the case law on "reasonably practicable"

HSE is good at waffling about how to avoid injury etc - not the compensation claims that arise after it .........clue is in the title - Avoiding Compensation Claims. Not avoiding injury on a boat.

I know that because it was me that created the title when I split the thread I think you are missing the point - the best way to avoid a compensation claim... ...don't hurt anyone.

[Rogue Wave]

Originally Posted by Polwart

You disagreed with (b) but didn't explain why (it was a question so not sure how you can disagree with it).

Mlud the party of the first part disagrees with the statement made by the party of the second part insomuch as the party of the second part whilts acting as a volunteer interpretter for the 'Rogue Speak' used by the party of the first part, suggested that "b" was what was meat by the party of the first part.

The words used by the party of the second part, namely 'The problem, which I think RW is alluding to, is:' was not what the party of the first part meant therefore the party of the first part registered a disagrement

Case closed



I shall send you a copy of this on letter headed notepaper which will negate your right to compensation if this thread gets too exiting..tuff luck buddy.

had a bad day at sea today will come back a little more sensible tomorrow

[Poly]

Case closed

I shall send you a copy of this on letter headed notepaper which will negate your right to compensation if this thread gets too exiting..tuff luck buddy.

please ensure you seal it with wax as otherwise all your protections may disappear... as my clever dick lawyers argue with yours over the correct method of conveying such messages.

[bedajim]

Originally Posted by Polwart

Jim - my understanding was this is not actually a new set of rules, and whole body vibration / shock should already be part of the risk assessment. Time has been allowed (5 yrs?) for employers to become fully compliant though - which is about to run out. Some sectors have longer (but not marine?). Some people will interpret it as meaning you need suspension seats others will take a more practical approach and remember that the loud stick also has a lot to do with harsh landings! I think the biggest problem is no one really knows what the "cut off limits" relate to, and how these translate to what people experience at sea out of sight of the office. I wonder if you can create an iPhone App to measure the instantaneous and average shock on a person?

I'm sitting here with some CE consultants (who are carrying out CE marking and risk assessments on a machine) and will ask the question in a few minutes, bet we get a cloudy answer

[Searider]

I wonder if the professional charter association have any guidance on suitable information to be taken / disclaimers to be signed.

Looks like a smallish organisation at the moment but could become a central point of contact for the industry?

http://www.pro-charter.org.uk/about.html

[Sonar]

Originally Posted by Searider

I wonder if the professional charter association have any guidance on suitable information to be taken / disclaimers to be signed.

Looks like a smallish organisation at the moment but could become a central point of contact for the industry?

http://www.pro-charter.org.uk/about.html

Looks like the company to contact....

[bedajim]

Originally Posted by bedajim

I'm sitting here with some CE consultants (who are carrying out CE marking and risk assessments on a machine) and will ask the question in a few minutes, bet we get a cloudy answer

Yep clear as mud so many variables and interpretations