Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

So following on from my SITE FATALITY blog on Friday. After speaking to the project Safety Manager and others the situation has become a little clearer. Without wanting to overrun the blog, I’m going to write a piece confirming the circumstances of the accident, and a second outlining the investigation process so far, and moving forwards.

Firstly, the incident: As expected, the information I received on Friday was generally correct, but wrong in a few key areas. Here is an update:

A third-party (AI) delivery of aggregate was received on site. This delivery was ordered by the concrete sub-contractor (DCB), who were therefore responsible for the delivery for the whole duration of his time on site. The truck drove around to the specified delivery site, then reversed off the road and down an incline in order to discharge the aggregate. The surface of the incline was dusty, so once the mass of the aggregate had been removed from the flatbed, the truck lost traction with the surface, which is why it got stuck and needed to be recovered. So potentially some culpability for the General Contractor (MG) who failed to provide safe site access (no matting or aggregate etc. etc.). There was no tow-bar on the front of the truck (potential culpability for AI), so a tow-strap was attached to the front axle and the vehicle recovered to the track. At which point the truck driver exited the vehicle (left-hand side), and walked around to the rear of the truck in order to secure the tailgate. Whilst this was happening two sub-contractors (DCB) moved forwards (from the right of the vehicle) to undo the tow-strap. One wedged himself under the front right tire to give himself enough leverage to work the straps, whilst the second handed him tools. There was no spotter or banksman (so potential culpability on behalf of both DCB and MG for not following site best-practice). The truck driver, unaware of this activity climbed back into the cab and without doing a vehicle walk-around or checking that he was clear drove off crushing the first man, and knocking the second over (potential culpability for both the delivery driver (AI) and also MG for not properly briefing, training or supervising him). It appears that all of this happened so quickly that the MG foreman was not aware of it until after the incident. There could quite easily have been two fatalities that day.

The investigations have started, but it is likely to take some time for conclusions to be reached. It is the opinion of the Project Safety Manager (and myself) that all three parties will be found liable to some extent; it is just a question of the proportionality of blame. Ultimately, according to the contract and site-practice over here, the delivery was the full responsibility of the sub-contractor DCB (not the General Contractor (MG)), who may be found more liable than the others. Though this is just conjecture on my part at this stage.