The company was left with a court bill of more than £341,000 after the man suffered horrific injuries
Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd has been fined after an incident involving a falling crate (file photo)
Hull company Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd will have to pay a court bill of more than £341,000 after a man suffered horrific injuries when a huge, heavy crate suddenly fell on top of him. The victim had volunteered to help guide a fork lift truck driver who was unloading crates that had been delivered to the site.
The company, a major employer in Hull, did not ensure that proper safety arrangements were put in place for the unloading of the large crate – which toppled from the forks of the truck and onto the man. He was “crushed” and was trapped underneath the fallen crate for a long time, Hull Crown Court heard.
Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd denied failing to ensure that people not in its employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety on December 22, 2020. The company was convicted after a three-week trial at Grimsby Crown Court that finished just over a year ago, on September 12 last year.
Robert Stevenson, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive, said that the man suffered serious injuries when a large, heavy crate, weighing about 1.2 tonnes, fell on him from a forklift truck at the premises of Smith & Nephew in Hull. The crate contained a very expensive electron microscope that had been delivered by another company, Nippon Express (UK) Ltd, which employed the man.
“The original, and usual, plan was for Nippon to take responsibility for unloading the crate and other smaller crates that formed part of the same delivery,” said Mr Stevenson.
“However, the plans changed in the days leading up to the incident, due to S&N seeking to limit the number of people arriving on site during the time of the Covid pandemic. S&N offered to supply a fork lift truck and a driver and, therefore, take responsibility for unloading the goods from the truck.”
When the worker arrived on site, he was not given any instruction or information about the unloading procedure by anyone at S&N. In the absence of anyone else assisting the fork lift truck driver, he stepped in and was trying to assist and guide the fork lift driver when the crate fell on him.
“S&N did not ensure that people knew how to stay safe during the unloading, for example by establishing who was in charge, where people should or should not stand during the unloading, who would play what role and other standard safety procedures,” said Mr Stevenson. The worker was concerned that, because of the size of the crates, the fork lift truck driver would not have full visibility.
He stepped in to play the role of banksman and guide him. “The last crate to be unloaded was the largest and heaviest crate on the vehicle,” said Mr Stevenson.
When the driver reversed with the crate, the worker shouted for him to stop but it was too late and the crate fell from the forks and on top of him.
The victim was under the crate for a considerable time while the emergency services tried to free him. He suffered serious injuries, including multiple fractures to his chest, ribs, breastbone, left leg, pelvis and ankle. He had a collapsed lung and lost teeth.
The man suffered recurring nightmares of the accident and being trapped, depression and stress. He had many surgeries, at least 40 days in hospital and a very large number of physiotherapy appointments.
“His leg has not recovered and he will never have the use of it that he enjoyed previously,” said Mr Stevenson. “He is unable to take part in hobbies that he used to enjoy, such as golf.
“His wife has become more of a carer to him than a wife. He feels like a burden to his family and his injuries have also significantly impacted them.”
The fork lift truck was working beyond its safe working load when lifting the heaviest crate. “This should not have been done but could not be said to be the cause of the crate falling,” said Mr Stevenson.
“There were issues with the manufacturing and design of the crate, which were likely to have contributed to the crate falling. S&N failed to plan properly and ensure that the lift was going to be done in a safe way.”
The company had a previous conviction in February 2000 for failing to ensure the safety of non-employees, when a contractor suffered minor burns. It also had a conviction in September 1997 involving the under-reporting of accidents and another in March 1997 for failing to ensure the safety of non-employees, over unsafe work relating to asbestos removal.
Mike Atkins, mitigating, said that the company had a clear target that there should be no incidents or injuries of any kind and it had always taken what happened extremely seriously. The company was “terribly sorry” that the man had been injured.
A civil claim had been settled. “The company has a good safety culture,” said Mr Atkins. “This is, to all intents and purposes, an isolated incident.” Employees were involved in risk assessments.
The lifting of the crate was complex. “The company had not been told that any special precautions were needed,” said Mr Atkins. “The yard was a suitable area, with firm and level ground.”
The forklift truck driver exceeded the level of competence needed and the “extremely experienced” banksman who was injured “put himself forward” to help. “He was a good person to do that job if somebody was going to do it,” said Mr Atkins.
The two men worked successfully together for 45 minutes before the crate fell. “There had been no previous incidents or near misses,” said Mr Atkins.
“Nobody knows why the crate fell.” The company had a turnover of £42m in the most recent year but had a loss of just under £8m. “The company is part of a wider group,” said Mr Atkins.
Judge Richard Woolfall said that the victim was in an area where he should not have been. “That’s why he was crushed by the crate when it fell,” said Judge Woolfall.
“Smith & Nephew failed to plan the lift in any meaningful way. It should have been made clear what was going to happen and how it was going to happen. No banksman had been identified beforehand.
“This was ultimately a forklift being used at the limit of its capacity. That’s clearly an obvious risk. None of this was due up cost-cutting. It was a failure to think things through.”
The company was fined £230,000 and it was ordered to pay £111,000 costs to the Health and Safety Executive and a £190 victims’ surcharge.
Did you know you can make Hull Live a preferred source of Hull news in Google, which will mean you get more of our breaking news, exclusives, and must-read stories straight away? Here’s more information about what this means and how to do it – you can also do it straight away by clicking here.