Interesting reading...

[John Hancock]

Pulled this off the internet this morning. The company is a firm of solicitors specialising in accident claims. Apologies if its already been covered.

 

 

Our client was using a large, powerful chainsaw at work, to cut a large tree into sections. The tree was around 4ft in diameter and the saw, although the second largest available, was shorter in length than this. This meant that the nose was fully embedded in the trunk whilst cutting.

 

He had only received training on much smaller saws, and only for situations where the saw is longer than the diameter of the tree, which reduces the risk of ‘kickback’ as the nose of the saw protrudes past the area being cut. He had only used this particular saw under supervision for 20 minutes a week earlier, and for a different type of task.

 

Whilst carrying out his work, the saw kicked back out of the wood, knocked off the claimant’s helmet and cut through his visor. He sustained serious facial injuries as a result of this workplace accident.

The claimant instructed our solicitors, who have extensive experience in industrial accident cases, to assist him in making a personal injury claim against his employer.

 

The defendants tried to argue that the training he received was sufficient and any additional learning could be done with on-the-job mentoring, however there was no supervision on the day in any event.

 

The Court rejected their argument and found them to be in breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The claimant was awarded a settlement of damages in respect of his injuries.

[skyhuck]

Just one more reason why I do all the cutting myself.

[Mick Stockbridge]

Simple!the employers have no one to blame but themselves.He should have been supervised.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Simple!the employers have no one to blame but themselves.He should have been supervised.

 

Whats the point of having a groundy if you have to stand at the side of him watching him.

 

"Supervision" should be an experienced operator with him on the job and at what stage would you call someone experienced.

 

If he has been warned and educated about kickback then that should be enough.

[Nick Waring]

When i did my college course, i was tought to keep my body and head to one side of the cut, for this very reason, if the saw did kick back, it would go over my shoulder. Surely if he was educated he would have been tought this, and be his fault?

[Dean Lofthouse]

When i did my college course, i was tought to keep my body and head to one side of the cut, for this very reason, if the saw did kick back, it would go over my shoulder. Surely if he was educated he would have been tought this, and be his fault?

 

I find it very awkward and difficult to stand in line with the blade, natural work positioning dictates you standing to the left side if you are right handed and visa versa

[Paul Barton]

Blade?!

[treequip]

Just one more reason why I do all the cutting myself.

 

Ahhhhhh

 

Me too

 

Does this mean I am not a control freak after all?

[Mick Stockbridge]

Whats the point of having a groundy if you have to stand at the side of him watching him.

 

"Supervision" should be an experienced operator with him on the job and at what stage would you call someone experienced.

 

If he has been warned and educated about kickback then that should be enough.

 

Ive seen too many sprogs with big saws in their hands.All arbs earn enough to be able to stand over them for at least a couple of hours.Even if its just up the yard with the odd spare hour or so.Twenty minutes beggars belief.

[Yorkshireman]

Well if he didnt know what to do, should he have tried it ?

 

 

knowledge & practical application re hazards of kickback cross cutting is assessed / covered both in NPTC

CS 30 & cross cutting in Cs31

also 32 timber 1.5 times at felling cut.

crosscut is not in cs33 large tree felling max bar length of 15" for felling cut 30cm

equiv to 2* bar length

 

So could the employer have sent the candidate for assessment ?