School accident claims cost £600,000

When I was first employed at the school, anyone and everyone was driving one of the three 17 seter minibuses.
Some of the driving was on set routes for collection and return of children to their homes.

I objected to this on the grounds that these drivers were breaking the law, and was quite shocked that this was going on.

It ended with me e-mailing VOSA for advice, not specifying where I worked but being very specific with regards to the type of journeys.

They informed me that the school and drivers would need to be licensed to service vehicle level, in other words no special licenses, but a full PCV for that size vehicle, and an operators license, with all the appropriate legal duties that come with that, as the school was a for-profit organisation.

So in answer to russell, no risk assesment was undertaken, because a regularly updated risk assesment would have highlighted the change of law that came 6 years before I raised my concerns, and in all that time minibuses were being operated illegally.

It must be noted that there are still many school minibuses being operated illegally, the thought sends a shiver down my spine.

Since the takeover health and safety is constantly being updated, there are still areas of concern, and in some cases no risk assesments, but things are improving on that front.

One benefit from the owner/managers having such a complacent attitude in the past is that, unlike areas that have always had risk assesments whereby many of the staff cant see the need, at our school they are welcomed,

This is because many employees have seen the mistakes that have been made and see H&S as definate progress.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

I hope none of these schools ever asked teachers / caretakers to drive the minibus without a risk assessment being done.

Yes, I work in a boarding school Janet, and we also have problems.

The company that now owns us are bringing in more health and safety, but there are still problems.

The previous owner openly broke laws, especially in employment rights (for instance someone that had worked 6 hours without a break for eating lunch in the dining hall was alledgedly asked to leave - office staff were not allowed breaks away from their work station)

Not personally, byt my sister works in a new school. She is derogatory about design (two examples include a circular balcony walkway which will only take two-abreast and which has had to be designated one-way to stop dangerous pushing and shoving when the bell rings - except for a boy on crutches who is permitted to take the shortest route from the lifts! - and taps which rotate in a full circle to enable filling of pans in the cookery room, so the children get water everywhere but in the sink); and she also cites kids who cannot be controlled because they say quite openly the teachers can't do anything to stop them without getting into trouble themselves.
Also my husband currently works on school refurbishment, and suggested my sister would be a good consultant - he thinks some designers are too unaware of practical issues in schools - they just go for looks.
Re H&S, my sister was sent on a training course, but teachers are 'too busy' to go on the course (she is a technical assistant, helping kids with woodwork, metalwork, cookery and other 'technical' skills) and rely on her H&S skills - those who actually deign to listen to a lowly technician. A common complaint from her is that they don't listen, either to her advice as a H&S expert or as a technical expert - they just assume they know best because they have a teachers diploma and she doesn't.

wonders how many people that have commented have actually had dealings with any schools?

All very well but, you cannot delegate elf-an-safety to a minor........

No doubt building design and environment has been poor over the years and sure the loss of workshops supporting vocational training was a health and safety decission rather than an educational one along with selling off sports facil;ities and limiting use of all equipment or access to activities that may present a risk.

Tis therefore little wonder that children grow up without any common sense or vulnerability in terms of recognising potential risk as play and self-exploration of their limitations is limited to virtual world of the playstation.

Only thing left to do is issue PPE body armer and helmets to all, remove pencils, pens etc. from the classroom along with anything else not a very secure fixture and fitting and lower 'anti-climb' fences so that should they fall it won't be too far as most kids can pop over an 3 metre fence without a problem.

I think it's called - Compensation-itis! Small accident = opportunity for gaining some unearned cash for just a little, or maybe more, pain and suffering.

Whatever happened to the concept of our being responsible ourselves for what happens to us? Why is 'personal responsibility' not a fundamental and integral part of the education of our children? Once understood and accepted, it would stand our countrymen in better stead for living full and accident free lives.

Is it true that accendents can be avoided with sufficient thought and planning?

Like I said, Kids push boundaries. If they do, and get hurt, that is their fault - not the schools for not having wrapped them in cotton wool. If there is a clear risk - something damaged or broken that needs mending or replacing - then the accident was preventable. If there is a clear risk like steep steps a child might fall down, then a warning notice advises of the risk.
Kids who get hurt playing games too enthusiasticly, pushing boundaries, taking risks they have been warned about, do not need compensation, they need to be told now you know why we warned you.
I'd give an example - teenagers in my town have taken to using steps and ramps in the town centre as a gym. It is clear they should be in one of the many parks or even a proper gym, but they are outside in the way of shoppers, showing off their prowess by leaping over the protective bars.
One day one of them will get seriously hurt. (Assuming they do not injure an innocent bystander first). Whose fault is it? Theirs, for being so stupid? Their parents, for not knowing what their kids are up to? The councils, for not putting 'no athletics' notices alongside the 'no skating / no skateboards' ones? The police, for not moving them on every week?
I'd say theirs, every time, but other people are being endangered. And no doubt a no-win, no-fee solicitor would have a good go at proving the council (it is community land) is at fault if someone is hurt.

Carl the kids are protected under H&S legislation, they are obviously not at work, the teaching staff or contractors are ! and a duty of care is owed to thE kids a Head teacher would fall foul of the Corporate manslaughter legislation if it can be proven that they "Consented, conived, or condoned a situation that led to the demise of a person, they would be judged on the ammount of training and knowledge they had on H&S to determine the level of their culpability

Obviously £600,000 is cheaper than the alternative. Employing Health & Safety professionals to work full time to work in a school/schools.

So my questions are,are our children exempt from the health & safety laws which protect adults everyday in the work place? Is the headmaster guilty under the corporate manslaughter legislation if a pupil dies by way of a preventable accident? Is it reasonable to expect teachers with little or no health & safety expertise to be responsible for the childrens health & safety in todays age?

The point is, that our law system apparently ignores the fact accidents happen. Kids particularly get hurt because they are pushing boundaries and testing their limits - that is life.
Our job as responsible adults and citizens is to create a secure environment free from obvious hazards - not wrap everyone in cotton wool.
An accident does not need compensation unless it could have been fore-seen. You can fore-see that a broken rail could cause an accident; but a secure rail that has had no problem in forty years is not a fore-seeable risk.
If the judge didn't even look at the rail he has no way of knowing if 40 years service has made it dilapidated and dangerous, or if it is as secure as it was when first put up.

Although the article mentions 'no win, no fee' solicitors, for me it is more about claimants making claims against organisations when in reality they may have created the problem themselves.
I work for the Public Sector, we regularly get claims made against our organisation.
Unfortunately, some of these claims we lose; mainly I have to say because that there was no risk assessment in place. One example, in a recent case a visitor allegedly broke their little finger on a hand rail whilst walking down the stairs. The stairs have been in place for the best part of 40 years, no-one has ever previously been injured by the hand rail. When I and my colleagues(risk and safety specialists) looked at the handrail we still could not see how someone would break their finger. However as we didn't have a risk assessment in place, for what the judge said was a 'foreseeable risk' we lost the case and compensation had to be paid. In addition the judge made comment that the hand rail should be replaced, at great expense for one minor incident in 40 years. The judge had not seen the hand rail and was basing this on a very biased case.
I am a great advocate of health and safety, however rulings like this make a mockery of the importance of the legislative system. The process for risk assessment is to manage the most significant risk, not all risk. Spending ridiculous amounts of money on minor risk areas means that money is not then available for more important work, the pot has limited depth.
Solicitors, well you guys are in business and I can understand that if you see a case that can be won, you will go for it. I do however agree that 'no win, no fee' has increased the claims profile of organisations such as the one I work for.
Let us hope that this changes in the future, although I doubt it.

Why are no win no fee lawyers ALWAYS blamed? Do people not understand the very concept of no win no fee means if our client loses we are NOT paid and therefore we do not take on spurious claims (well I and my colleagues certainly do not )
Perhaps it is more a matter that people want accountability from teachers and the like.

Suffice to say, not suprised.

And don't think for a moment that it's just the public sector.

Many of these schools have failed to invest in even basic health and safety training and risk assessment. The head teacher is often the 'responsible person' but has very little knowledge of the subject. They misguidedly think that sending their caretaker on a half day course is adequate and then ignore anything the caretaker suggests upon their return. I am sure that many education departments have a more responsive attitude and due to this is rewarded with lower premiums.
It is now vogue to belittle 'elf & safety' but it should be remembered that this very organisation and their efforts are gradually reducing deaths and serious injuries in the workplace.
Even so, approximately one person per working day is still kissing their loved ones goodbye and setting off to work never to return, due to a workplace fatality