14.01.2015

Spider not fit for purpose?

A UK court has ruled that a spider lift which overturned while trimming trees was not fit for purpose, in spite of a Health & Safety Executive report that found operator error was to blame.

The incident, which occurred in December 2010 in a garden in Milborne St Andrew, involved a Basket RQG 18 E spider lift which was working on a slope. Two men were in the platform when it went over, Chris Baxter owner of The Treeguy - 29 at the time - and employee Dan Milbourn, 23. See tree trimming accident UK
Please register to see all images

The scene yesterday

A week or two after the incident Baxter said that the two had completed work on one part of the tree and were moving to another area, and “retracted the machine to move across” adding that he was “waiting for the sensor to kick in” when it went over. Given the photos from the scene, we assume that he meant that he lowered the partially extended boom, waiting for the overload system to stop the descent, (the unit has a 200kg capacity for up to seven metres outreach, at which point it drops to 120kg. However something caused the machine to slip off of its outrigger mats and then overturn.

Whether it stopped suddenly and that with two fully grown men and their tools in the platform the dynamic load caused the machine to shift on its outriggers, we do not know.

The two fell from around six metres, with both men breaking legs, while Baxter also fractured two vertebrae, one of which was smashed into six pieces and nearly severed his spinal cord. He also dislocated a shoulder, fractured some ribs and pelvis and broke several teeth.
Please register to see all images

The machine had a good deal of boom extended

After the HSE found the cause to be operator error, Baxter sued the rental company - Up and Out Platform Hire - for providing a machine that was not fit for purpose. The judge has now found in Baxter’s favour, stating that the rental company supplied a machine that was not safe to use. This will now lead to negotiations over a settlement.

Baxter says he wants to “raise awareness of the importance of having ‘the right tools for the job’ to ensure that this does not happen to others. I understand the machine is no longer in production and that new machines on the market have a significantly different design to make them safer.”

Accident lawyers working for Baxter claimed that the Health & Safety Executive had not tested all of the machine’s safety systems and claimed that it had failed because overload sensors had not sounded the alarm, and also claimed that as the machine “slipped on unfixed pads before falling over. If it had been fitted with pads fixed to its feet it would not have slipped and the accident would not have happened”.

The lawyers also claimed that a previous incident involving the same model of lift, involved issues with the warning systems.

Vertikal Comment

The injuries sustained by Chris Baxter were horrific, and he is lucky both to have escaped with his life and to be walking again. However having a judge overrule a national safety body appointed to investigate such incidents sets a dangerous precedence. The machine was certainly the right tool for the job, given the fact that the work was working in a garden, and on a grass slope.

Baxter says that the rental company handed the machine over properly and made sure that they knew how to operate it etc... He also claims to have been fully trained and very familiar with using aerial work platforms. The rental company had obviously also provided mats to spread the load and it is good to see that these were used.

The combined weight of two tree cutters in winter clothing, with a chain saw and other lopping equipment is likely to have been close to the machine’s maximum platform capacity, and certainly too much for the amount of boom that appears to be out. One has to wonder then why they boomed down and waited for a sensor to kick in - especially when some older machines were not fitted with such devices? A sudden stop when lowering an extended boom will add significantly to the loading on a machine, as well as risk the potential for it to shift, especially when set up on a slope and sitting on new plastic mats. In this respect mats with a heavy friction surface or retention recess would be advantageous.

It is of course quite possible that this machine was not in a good state of repair, or that a safety system was not working or had been tampered with - a common occurrence on older machines? The fact is that when the HSE investigates such incidents it tends to try and find such faults such as this first, and will only blame the incident on operator error when it fails and the evidence clearly indicates it.

We have not seen all the evidence so are in no position to judge, but we do question the ruling that has been handed down on this occasion.