Day 130 - 26 May 95 - Page 04
1 statutory provisions of Regulation 6 of the Electricity at
2 Work Regulations 1989." If you contravene that
3 regulation, that is an offence, is it not?
4 A. Well, I certainly believe any contravention of any
5 legal requirement is, yes.
6
7 Q. "The reasons for my said opinion are the use of portable
8 electrical appliances in the wash up area in the above
9 premises will involve a risk of serious personal injury by
10 reason of the fact in the course of work activities carried
11 on therein such equipment may be exposed to mechanical
12 damage and the effects of wet conditions. Such exposure
13 could result in leakage of electrical current from the
14 equipment with the consequent risk of a fire being started
15 or persons being electrocuted by indirect contact."
16
17 Do you note there that it says, "in the course of work" in
18 that situation "equipment may be exposed to mechanical
19 damage and the effect of wet conditions". That is nothing
20 to do with any human error, is it?
21 A. I take it the wet conditions would come from the use of
22 water at the back sink.
23
24 Q. But it is talking about the -----
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Why do you not put what the nub of your case
27 is on this? You have the draft report now. You can put it
28 to her straight and simple: "There were various risks
29 involved here; there was not a cut out; the cable was too
30 short, so that in trying to reach the sink there was a risk
31 that the leads would be pulled out of plug. You have your
32 point about whether they were strong enough on stopping
33 people changing the plugs, and it was done in wet
34 conditions as well.
35
36 You may have other things apart from those but, without
37 looking at the draft report and papers, those seem to me to
38 be some of the things which you are going to raise. Why
39 not just put them straightaway and see if Mrs. Barnes
40 says: "Yes, those are the things we would have done better
41 to have got right in the first place".
42
43 MR. MORRIS: Would you accept what the Judge has just said?
44 A. Yes, I certainly, having carried out the investigation,
45 there are several things that, with hindsight, we would
46 have done differently. Unfortunately, they were not
47 identified when we did the risk assessment. Risk
48 assessments are never perfect and, unfortunately, this
49 particular area was not perfect.
50
51 Q. Before we leave the last document, it says something about
52 consequent risk of a fire being started. You said you
53 agreed with Michael Shirkie's opinion about the accident,
54 or his assessment situation. Do you agree that there is
55 also a risk that fires can start from the fat filtering
56 units, in those kind of circumstances?
57 A. Well, I do not really feel I have the technical
58 knowledge to be able to comment on that particular machine,
59 but I do know that, yes, electrical fires can start from
60 electrical equipment.
