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.

Prev Next Index