GBP30,000 fine for firm after worker injured by robot
July 23, 2010
A worker was left with a damaged voice box after being struck by a manufacturing robot.
Birmingham Crown Court heard how Dura Automotive Body and Glass Systems UK employee Michael Brewer was injured in the incident on 6 May 2008.
Mr Brewer was trying to repair a fully-automated industrial robot and as part of the repair wanted to see the operating cycle of the machine. The robot was fully enclosed by a solid guard meaning Mr Brewer could not see through to see the operating cycle. He decided to view the robot from inside the guarded area while the machine was operating. As he was in this dangerous zone, the robot struck him in the throat, which caused damage to his voice box and nerve damage on one side of his body. Mr Brewer has been unable to return to work due to his injuries.
Following the incident, the Health and Safety Executive investigated and found that the company failed to adequately supervise the system of work for accessing the machine, which required the machine to be put into manual before entering. The company also failed to account for a need arising to view the operating cycle of the machine.
During the investigation Inspectors learnt that it had become common practice for employees to enter the guarded area to view the operating cycle. The company risk assessment had failed to address the risks from maintenance operations and the risks posed by industrial robots operating within the guarded area.
The company has since installed large viewing panels in the guarding of the machine to remove the need for workers to enter the guarded area. They have also improved access arrangements and supervision of the systems.
Dura Automative was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £20,000 after being prosecuted for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
HSE inspector Edward Fryer said: "This is a prime example of a company failing to address the risks relating to maintenance work. Maintenance personnel often have to work within the guarded area of machinery, sometimes in the face of significant production pressure. Safe access arrangements must be provided and these should be written into maintenance procedures and have full management commitment. If workers see their supervisors and managers violating procedures, as they did here, employees will feel that violations are condoned. There was a culture of violation in this factory and it is very sad that it took an almost fatal accident for the company to identify this."
Inspector Fryer concluded: "Keeping the robot on the automatic cycle in these circumstances could very well have resulted in automatic death."
Find out more about Risk Assessment
Birmingham Crown Court heard how Dura Automotive Body and Glass Systems UK employee Michael Brewer was injured in the incident on 6 May 2008.
Mr Brewer was trying to repair a fully-automated industrial robot and as part of the repair wanted to see the operating cycle of the machine. The robot was fully enclosed by a solid guard meaning Mr Brewer could not see through to see the operating cycle. He decided to view the robot from inside the guarded area while the machine was operating. As he was in this dangerous zone, the robot struck him in the throat, which caused damage to his voice box and nerve damage on one side of his body. Mr Brewer has been unable to return to work due to his injuries.
Following the incident, the Health and Safety Executive investigated and found that the company failed to adequately supervise the system of work for accessing the machine, which required the machine to be put into manual before entering. The company also failed to account for a need arising to view the operating cycle of the machine.
During the investigation Inspectors learnt that it had become common practice for employees to enter the guarded area to view the operating cycle. The company risk assessment had failed to address the risks from maintenance operations and the risks posed by industrial robots operating within the guarded area.
The company has since installed large viewing panels in the guarding of the machine to remove the need for workers to enter the guarded area. They have also improved access arrangements and supervision of the systems.
Dura Automative was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £20,000 after being prosecuted for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
HSE inspector Edward Fryer said: "This is a prime example of a company failing to address the risks relating to maintenance work. Maintenance personnel often have to work within the guarded area of machinery, sometimes in the face of significant production pressure. Safe access arrangements must be provided and these should be written into maintenance procedures and have full management commitment. If workers see their supervisors and managers violating procedures, as they did here, employees will feel that violations are condoned. There was a culture of violation in this factory and it is very sad that it took an almost fatal accident for the company to identify this."
Inspector Fryer concluded: "Keeping the robot on the automatic cycle in these circumstances could very well have resulted in automatic death."
Find out more about Risk Assessment
More Court Cases news:
Worker left paralysed after being crushed by 600 pound steel beam - August 31, 2010Falling panel saw leaves employee brain damaged - August 26, 2010
GBP15,000 fine after worker left with hole through his shin - August 25, 2010
Lack of risk assessment leads to car falling from pier - August 25, 2010
GBP8,000 fine for steeplejack firm - August 17, 2010
