Corporate Manslaughter

[BHCC]

Hello All

I have been thinking about the new corporate manslaughter legislation which arrives in April. I have spoken to Eversheds who are our Solicitors regarding sending staff members to investigate the cause of a fire alarm activation. It has been decided that if the person investigating the cause was killed as a result of the fire then the organisation could be charged.

The solicitor said that if the wrtitten procedures stated that the potential fire was to be investigated that it would be very hard to defend in court.

Any thoughts?

[nearlythere]

Interesting one. There would have to be an awful lot of training in dynamic risk assessments in order to ensure the safety of investigators. However, many organisations have a policy of staff investigating the possible location of a suspected fire when the fire alarm sounds in the building they are in. Its not really a new thing.

[kurnal]

Solicitors always say that sort of thing. Ask them the same question with regard to staff crossing the road to visit a client.
You dont have to make your staff experts in fire fighting. You just have to have reasonable expectations when detailing their duties, to give them clear written instructions and training in what is expected of them, the hazards they may face and how those hazards are controlled.

How would your solictor cope with the concept of the use of Fire Fighting Equipment by staff? Yet the new RRO placed much greater emphasis on it than previously from the viewpoint that if a trained employee takes a tiny risk to extinguish a fire it prevents it becoming a far greater risk to far more people.  

As alarms are so much more comprehensive and sensitive, and as all fires start small the chances are that a modern fire alarm will give warning of a fire in its incipient stages.

Theres that example of the VESDA system picking up a fire in a computer suite two weeks before it actually gave any visible signs. Thats a blooming long time to spend on the car park. May catch your death of cold - what would your solicitor say then?

[Midland Retty]

Solicitors always say that sort of thing. Ask them the same question with regard to staff crossing the road to visit a client.
You dont have to make your staff experts in fire fighting. You just have to have reasonable expectations when detailing their duties, to give them clear written instructions and training in what is expected of them, the hazards they may face and how those hazards are controlled.

How would your solictor cope with the concept of the use of Fire Fighting Equipment by staff? Yet the new RRO placed much greater emphasis on it than previously from the viewpoint that if a trained employee takes a tiny risk to extinguish a fire it prevents it becoming a far greater risk to far more people.  

As alarms are so much more comprehensive and sensitive, and as all fires start small the chances are that a modern fire alarm will give warning of a fire in its incipient stages.

Theres that example of the VESDA system picking up a fire in a computer suite two weeks before it actually gave any visible signs. Thats a blooming long time to spend on the car park. May catch your death of cold - what would your solicitor say then?

Well said.

Solicitors aren't generally that familiar with the concepts / legislation behind fire safety.

And why should they be? Compared with many other criminal offences which end up in court fire safety related prosecutions are few and far between  and so not many solicitors get experience of fire safety related matters.

Our solicitor hadn't even read the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 until we asked him to represent us.

The key here with regard to staff investigating fire alarm activations is making sure they are adequately trained.

I would suggest your solicitor may be correct in what s/he said if you didnt train your employees to safely check or investigate fire alarm activations and they were subsequently killed.

[BHCC]

Interesting what you say but what do you think the Judge would say?

[Steven N]

I agree with Kurnal. If any investigation is carried out by correctly trained staff then I would suggest that is a defence to my non legal mind. The principal of risk assesment seems to be clashing with eversheds advice.

[nearlythere]

Interesting what you say but what do you think the Judge would say?

Thats the problem.
If you went to a solicitor and said you wanted to sue Santa Claus for damaging tiles on your roof they would probably say you might have a good case. Doesn't really matter what way it goes in court. Win or lose, they still have to be paid.

[BHCC]

So what training do you think is adaquate then?

 Eversheds are our solicitors, so it isn't a case of them trying to drum up business. They are just giving advice.

My opinion is that if the fire alarm is activated why is there a need to get a second opinion? I think that one of the problems is that not many people are confident in their own fire alarm systems.

[nearlythere]

So what training do you think is adaquate then?

 Eversheds are our solicitors, so it isn't a case of them trying to drum up business. They are just giving advice.

My opinion is that if the fire alarm is activated why is there a need to get a second opinion? I think that one of the problems is that not many people are confident in their own fire alarm systems.

Correct opinion. If a fire has been detected then evacuate immediately. As you allude to, if it sounds, you already have the expert opinion of a specifically designed fire and smoke detection system and it should be reasonable for you to assume that there is a fire and therefore a need to evacuate.

[kurnal]

Do you never have any false alarms?
In a care home or hospital with detectors everywhere is it reasonable to create such great upheaval and disturbance to vulnerable people  and evacuate for a false alarm or unwanted signal?

In talking about the law it is important to make a clear distinction between civil law- there are always a myriad of solicitors wishing to have a  go at Santa on a no win no fee basis and criminal law under which manslaughter cases fall- different burden of proof, and quality of evidence tested by rofessionals before it ever gets to court.

Do your solictiors offer fire safety advice or mentoring services? Many do - and where they do its a useful tool to judge their likely performance in these cases. Was looking at a H&S mentoring pack costing £7k from one of the big banks the other day in which all standards and legislation were up to 20 years out of date and much advice was just rubbish. Still recommended Halon extingishers.

[BHCC]

Of course we have false alarms but then so do the Fire Service. Do they ever just send one person to investigate before calling for the engines?

The question was putting the investigator at risk. Most hospitals and carehomes have phased evacuation. I would still expect the area concerned to evacuate false alarm or not.

Obivioulsy corporate manslaughter is criminal law but I would also expect a civil case to happen if a staff member was killed

[CivvyFSO]

If you give your staff the necessary training to do the task then you should have a good defence. Nobody is being asked to be a hero, we are generally talking about a fire the size of a small bin. If there are parts of the building where a person could become trapped, or you have highly flammables or explosives, then its rather different and your procedures should show that.

More people are probably put at risk by being given a nice big powerful company car while they lack the skills needed to drive the thing fast.

[BHCC]

But that is the point, until you get to the fire you don't know if it is a small bin fire or a large fire that is out of control.

Hopefully we will never have a test case but it would be interesting to see the outcome.

[Midland Retty]

So what training do you think is adaquate then?

 Eversheds are our solicitors, so it isn't a case of them trying to drum up business. They are just giving advice.

My opinion is that if the fire alarm is activated why is there a need to get a second opinion? I think that one of the problems is that not many people are confident in their own fire alarm systems.

Correct opinion. If a fire has been detected then evacuate immediately. As you allude to, if it sounds, you already have the expert opinion of a specifically designed fire and smoke detection system and it should be reasonable for you to assume that there is a fire and therefore a need to evacuate.

No not necessarily.

You will still get false alarms.

This is why many brigades won't attend certain types of premises until a fire is confirmed.

Most residential care homes investigate activations prior to calling the emergency services.

So no the "Get Out, Stay Out, Get the Fire Brigade Out " addage of old no longer applies to certain premises - instead the advice is "If in doubt Call the Fire Brigade Out"

Anyway lets get back to ever faithful employee who has been killed whilst investigating a fire alarm activation...

If someone were to die as a result of investigating a fire alarm I would suggest that something has gone seriously wrong, and by virtue of that there must be some horrendous management failings.

Id also argue that if a fire was able to get so big so quickly - to the point of causing fatalities in a short space of time there is a problem not only with the management of fire precautions but the standard of the fire precautions themselves.

So really this argument is academic if you dont have good management systems, training and fire precautions in place.

If you have what is the problem of investigating activations first? Its called Risk Assessment - something a lot of soliciotrs don't grasp easily until they can look deeper into the subject.

Also you can give all the training in the world to your employees, what if they choose to ignore it and did something silly which led to their own death? Would the employer be culpable?.

So no the facts need to be known before a definitive answer can be given. It would be case law.

As I mentioned earlier not many solicitors are well versed in the new fire safety legislation as yet, and so sweeping statements are best avoided.

[BHCC]

Maybe so but I am hoping that they are well versed in Corporate Manslaughter