|
|
|
|
|
06/06/2011
 Email to a friend
 Comment on this article
|
A worker who sustained horrific injuries, but lived, having been dragged through a gap no wider than a CD case on a poorly guarded machine, has become a symbol for getting guarding right.
 Barnsley Magistrates Court heard that Matthew Lowe got caught on a computer controlled conveyer system for moving heavy steel beams, at Compass Engineering in Barugh Green, after peering into an outlet point to check a line of work.
His clothing snagged on the machine and he was forced though an opening just 125mm wide on the machine head – suffering a ruptured stomach and bowel, broken back, shattered pelvis and fracturing his hips, right arm and several ribs.
The HSE investigation into the incident, on 19 December 2008, found there was no guarding in place – a serious safety failing for both his employer and the machine supplier, Kaltenbach.
The court was told that both parties were responsible for the guarding the machine belonged to Compass Engineering but Kaltenbach installed and signed-off the equipment as fit for use.
HSE investigators also established that Lowe, then 23, was inexperienced in operating the machinery, after being moved from a different line at the factory, because of a lull in his regular workload.
Compass Engineering pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in relation to the incident. Kaltenbach pleaded guilty to breaching Section 6(1)(a) of the same legislation.
"It almost defies belief that Mr Lowe's body could contort in such a way to fit through the opening it did, and it's even more astonishing that he survived to tell the tale," says HSE inspector Chris Chambers.
"Granted, he will never fully recover from the trauma he endured, but he could easily have been killed, and I could easily be commenting on another life needlessly lost because of basic safety failings," he continues.
"Compass Engineering have at least had the good grace to stand by Mr Lowe and provide continued support, but both they and Kaltenbach ultimately failed to protect the young worker when it mattered most."
Chambers makes the point so often made by HSE inspectors: had appropriate guarding been in place the incident would never have occurred.
"I hope today's prosecution serves as a firm reminder to all involved in manufacturing and processing, of the need to properly restrict exposure and access to dangerous moving parts," he warns.
Incidents involving contact with moving machinery or objects remain a prime cause of death and injury in the workplace, according to HSE statistics.
|
|
| |
Author
Brian Tinham
|
| |
| |
This material is protected by SOE copyright 2012.
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|