Farm safety

Essexboy

"Chief Executive of the Health and Safety Authority Martin O'Halloran said there had been 18 deaths on farms so far this year, which accounted for almost two-thirds of all work-related deaths."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0818/work.html

Why no prosecutions for farm accidents? A couple of farmers sitting in Castrerea or Port Laoise would have more effect than any safety campaign. Death on a construction site usually results in a prosecution and the policy for farm accidents should be similar.

Avns1s

Because trying to get someone who is deceased into court might be difficult!

Farmers generally work alone (I know there are exceptions!!), and in the majority of cases, you would find that if someone is culpible, it will be the person deceased.

Essexboy

It is not just farmers who die/are injured on farms, so are children and members of the public.

Modern farms are like industrial factories – dangerous places. Parents would never allow their children to wander around such areas, never mind use them as playgrounds. Yet, too often they are given the run of the farm where, invariably, there isn’t even a sign in sight to warn of potential hazards.

"A national survey compiled by Teagasc shows that almost 60pc of farmers have not completed a Code of Practice although they are legally obliged to do so. Pat Griffin, senior inspector with the HSA, said the results showed that many farmers were showing little or no regard for safety" http://irishfarming.ie/2009/08/18/farmers-take-too-many-risks/ (my italics).

reilig

Essexboy wrote: »

It is not just farmers who die/are injured on farms, so are children and members of the public.

Modern farms are like industrial factories – dangerous places. Parents would never allow their children to wander around such areas, never mind use them as playgrounds. Yet, too often they are given the run of the farm where, invariably, there isn’t even a sign in sight to warn of potential hazards.

"A national survey compiled by Teagasc shows that almost 60pc of farmers have not completed a Code of Practice although they are legally obliged to do so. Pat Griffin, senior inspector with the HSA, said the results showed that many farmers were showing little or no regard for safety" http://irishfarming.ie/2009/08/18/farmers-take-too-many-risks/ (my italics).

The majority of people killed on farms are farmers. No matter who is is that is killed, there is a HSA and a Garda investigation. If the farm owner is found to be negligent then there is a prosecution. If the farmer was killed then obviously its impossible to prosecute. If the farm owner is found not to be negligable, then there is no prosecution.

Every accident that a person loses a life in does not result in prosecution - its only if there was negligence. God forbid if someone was out walking on the road at night in dark clothing and knocked down by a car and killed, and there was nothing that the car driver could do about it, then the car owner is not prosecuted.

maidhc

Essexboy wrote: »

Modern farms are like industrial factories – dangerous places. Parents would never allow their children to wander around such areas, never mind use them as playgrounds. Yet, too often they are given the run of the farm where, invariably, there isn’t even a sign in sight to warn of potential hazards.

As already said, it tends to be the farmer/landowner/employer and occupier who gets killed and thus the blameworthy person has got a death sentence.

Again, if a child gets killed, that is something the parents have to live with. I think the chances of a child being killed is a stronger disincentive than a spell in the "joy"! Putting them in jail after the event isn't really going to change much.

As regards signs. You need to have certain things in order for the HSA, but a farm is by definition a dangerous place and i'm not sure if that can be changed.

convert

Essexboy wrote: »

Parents would never allow their children to wander around such areas, never mind use them as playgrounds. Yet, too often they are given the run of the farm where, invariably, there isn’t even a sign in sight to warn of potential hazards.

How many children read warning or safety signs? Or, if they do read them, actually heed what's written on them?

You can put up as many warning signs as you want, but it still isn't going to stop an accident or injuries - just look at all the signage on the roads.

bbam

maidhc wrote: »

I think the chances of a child being killed is a stronger disincentive than a spell in the "joy"! Putting them in jail after the event isn't really going to change much.

I understand what you are saying..
BUT
If a parent has been neglectful and a child dies as a result then the full law should be brought to bare on them... Letting them off because they are sad would be wrong.

whelan1

bbam , do you have kids?

maidhc

bbam wrote: »

If a parent has been neglectful and a child dies as a result then the full law should be brought to bare on them... Letting them off because they are sad would be wrong.

"Sad" is what you are when it starts raining before you have the hay saved or the dinner is gone cold before you get to eat it.

whelan1

bbam wrote: »

I understand what you are saying..
BUT
If a parent has been neglectful and a child dies as a result then the full law should be brought to bare on them... Letting them off because they are sad would be wrong.

i have never lost a child and would hope it would never happen to me... but the guilt a parent would have to live with would be awful.. i have a 2 year old son and you would need eyes in the back of your head to watch him continuously , he has no sense and even though we have the yard / house well fenced off , he is like evil knevil for the stunts he can pull.... i think the death of a child is bad enough with out jailing a parent

bbam

whelan1 wrote: »

i have never lost a child and would hope it would never happen to me... but the guilt a parent would have to live with would be awful.. i have a 2 year old son and you would need eyes in the back of your head to watch him continuously , he has no sense and even though we have the yard / house well fenced off , he is like evil knevil for the stunts he can pull.... i think the death of a child is bad enough with out jailing a parent

Thanks I have two..
There is a difference between a terrible accident and negligence..

I know a farm beside me and a 9 year old is whizzing round on a full size quad on his own and no helmet, if that child was seriously hurt I would consider it neglect on the parents behalf..

Consider a case where a 16 year old looses his arm on an unguarded PTO (I've been on such a farm). Is this an accident or neglect on the behalf of the equipment owner.
I work in the euipment maintenance field, in an industrial setting this accident would bring H&S down on the person responsible and if a operator was allowed to use machinery with no guards/protection in place then a prosecution would ensue.


On a more trivial note... my 1,000th post

5live

Just saw in Indo about woman in Sligo walking her dog with her son on unfenced commonage behind a beach when she was attacked by a bull. Now my question is this. Who is at fault? The farmers for not fencing? The owner of the bull for not having a chain on him? Or the woman for trespass or stupidity for bringing a dog into a field of cattle?

reilig

5live wrote: »

Ju The owner of the bull for not having a chain on him?

The question I have is why does the owner of a bull need to have a chain on him???? How would it have affected the situation - would it have prevented the bull from attacking the woman?? I doubt it.

Chains are a cruel method of control on bulls which only make them more angry by getting caught in bushes and wire and giving the bull a treble shock through the nose from electric fences. A chain on a bull has little to do with the safety of the bull and in most cases only causes the bull to be more dangerous as he retaliates for having it stuck in his nose ring.

In answer to your question, who is at fault, the bull owner is at fault. He or she is open to a compensation claim from the woman that was attacked - even if the woman was being stupid or trespassing. The owner of the bull is bound by law to keep him under control and can be sued for any damage that the bull does. There have been numerous similar cases through the courts and in the end, the bull owner has always had to pay.

Username John

reilig wrote: »

In answer to your question, who is at fault, the bull owner is at fault. He or she is open to a compensation claim from the woman that was attacked - even if the woman was being stupid or trespassing.

Really?

So if you had a bull in a field, and had done all you should have done re fencing and such, and someone got into the field and the bull attacked - its your fault?

So what can you do if you do have a bull? Do signs at the entrance somehow help, to move the liability onto the trespasser?

reilig

bbam wrote: »

I understand what you are saying..
BUT
If a parent has been neglectful and a child dies as a result then the full law should be brought to bare on them... Letting them off because they are sad would be wrong.

The law is always brought to bare on people in these situations, but it is so close to family law and it is very rare that they will be reported on. So its not very likely that the general public will hear about them.

In a lot of cases where a child dies through an accident, if a case is brought to a court, the Judge gives a suspended sentence because he or she feels that the family have suffered enough with the loss of a child.

Are you calling for a jail sentence or just a prosecution??? Nobody gets let off if they are found to be negligable in a tragic accident. The sentence varies - but unless there was extreme negligence, there is rarely a jail sentence.

pakalasa

This happened on commonage, by the way.
So does this mean that a farmer can't put a bull on commonage?
What about cows with young calves, I know from experience that they are just as dangerous. I witnessed one of my cows attack a young guy walking a dog one day. Luckily no harm done. If there was a serious attack, would I be have held respnsible?

What about "Right of ways"?
I have one through by land. Does that mean I would be responsible for an attack even though the bull is well-fenched in? :mad:

Long Term Louth

convert wrote: »

How many children read warning or safety signs? Or, if they do read them, actually heed what's written on them?

You can put up as many warning signs as you want, but it still isn't going to stop an accident or injuries - just look at all the signage on the roads.

It may help and if it saves just one person/child from fatality, would it not have been worth it?

reilig

Username John wrote: »

Really?

So if you had a bull in a field, and had done all you should have done re fencing and such, and someone got into the field and the bull attacked - its your fault?

So what can you do if you do have a bull? Do signs at the entrance somehow help, to move the liability onto the trespasser?

That's the law as I understand it. If someone walks onto my field without my permission and falls and breaks a leg, then they can claim compensation from me (never mind if my bull attacks them). It could be argued that a sign saying no entry passes on liability, but on the other side, I'm supposed to be in control of my animals and if they attack, I'm liable.

Its a minefield of legal swings and roundabouts that the farmer always seems to come out worst. I did a lot of work on it for a thesis in college about 10 years ago.

You may remember a few years ago it made news headlines where farmers in sligo and leitrim stopped people entering their land for hillwalking because of a fear of claims for falls and injuries from animals. The only resolution was for the walking clubs to have their own insurance which would take liability away from the farmer

reilig

pakalasa wrote: »

This happened on commonage, by the way.
So does this mean that a farmer can't put a bull on commonage?
What about cows with young calves, I know from experience that they are just as dangerous. I witnessed one of my cows attack a young guy walking a dog one day. Luckily no harm done. If there was a serious attack, would I be have held respnsible?

What about "Right of ways"?
I have one through by land. Does that mean I would be responsible for an attack even though the bull is well-fenched in? :mad:

You are responsible for the control of your animals whether they be on private land, commonage or a public road. If they cause damage then you will be liable for it. Even if people put up signs to say no trespassing, cases have been brought and won where they trespassed and got injured.

maidhc

reilig wrote: »

Its a minefield of legal swings and roundabouts that the farmer always seems to come out worst. I did a lot of work on it for a thesis in college about 10 years ago.

Putting a sign up does modify your liability and should be done. But yeah a farmer will always get sued (and wearing my solicitors hat) it is because they have assets and are a good target.

reilig

maidhc wrote: »

Putting a sign up does modify your liability and should be done. But yeah a farmer will always get sued (and wearing my solicitors hat) it is because they have assets and are a good target.

I agree with Maidhc. I was not advocating that people should not or have no reason to put up signs.

Long Term Louth

whelan1 wrote: »

i have never lost a child and would hope it would never happen to me... but the guilt a parent would have to live with would be awful.. i have a 2 year old son and you would need eyes in the back of your head to watch him continuously , he has no sense and even though we have the yard / house well fenced off , he is like evil knevil for the stunts he can pull.... i think the death of a child is bad enough with out jailing a parent

True as this may be and I am a parent, there is Health and Safety legislation that can prosecute the parent should the parent be deemed negligble, so just imagine the turmoil the family will/would go through in such an instance.

Farming by its nature is generally a family run business and particularly dangerous and I think the main aim of the HSA is to promote Safety in this area and not to prosecute. So perhaps the way forward is to educate the farmers as to the dangers involved.

However and sad as it is, it has been my experience in industry that it generally takes an accident serious or otherwise for peoples attitude towards taking risks to change.

5live

Is it not official policy to have ring AND chain on a bull. I agree that it doesnt help docility in an animal and is dangerous trying to release a bull from a hedge with the chain stuck. I know all about that and now use loader for that job but i think it could be legal requirement. Anybody able to clear that one up?

Long Term Louth

reilig wrote: »

I agree with Maidhc. I was not advocating that people should not or have no reason to put up signs.

I am not sure (and I stand corrected) if the event would be investigated by the HSA as it may not be deemed a work related accident.

whelan1

yes but there will always be guys who have their 10 year old out driving a tractor and such likes

Long Term Louth

whelan1 wrote: »

yes but there will always be guys who have their 10 year old out driving a tractor and such likes

Although common this is against the law.

In such an instance however if the child has an accident it would be considered a workploace accident.

bbam

I didn't mention jail at all, my point was that we cannot exempt anyone who has been negligent to the extent that it causes a death from being prosecuted, if this results in incarcaration then so be it...

Truthfully the conversation should be more about accident prevention and improved Farm safety across the board...

reilig

5live wrote: »

Is it not official policy to have ring AND chain on a bull. I agree that it doesnt help docility in an animal and is dangerous trying to release a bull from a hedge with the chain stuck. I know all about that and now use loader for that job but i think it could be legal requirement. Anybody able to clear that one up?

Definitely not a legal requirement to have a chain on a bull. Its a legal requirement to have him ringed. Animal welfare could take issue with you if you hang a chain from the ring.

whelan1

i remember ringing a bull in ag college and the lecturer lost his finger taking the halter off the bull:eek:

bbam

reilig wrote: »

Definitely not a legal requirement to have a chain on a bull. Its a legal requirement to have him ringed. Animal welfare could take issue with you if you hang a chain from the ring.

Thats interesting as we keep our bull chained while out in the fields, over the winter we remove it..
What would be the purpose of the ring if not for the chain?

whelan1

it is to make people aware that he is abull, also for handling purposes , we would never let a bull leave the yard with out a ring

bbam

Interestingly the HSA farm safety information shows a bull with ring AND chain attached... I just double checked to be sure..:rolleyes:
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/


Can I ask then how many have completed Farm Safety Statments or reviewed them once created?? We only have a small holding, we created a statment but it's two years since it's been opened

Maybe one of the MODS could start a sticky with links to Farm Safety information...

reilig

bbam wrote: »

Interestingly the HSA farm fafety information shows a bull with ring AND chain attached... I just double checked to be sure..:rolleyes:

Can I ask then how many have completed Farm Safety Statments or reviewed them once created?? We only have a small holding, we created a statment but it's two years since it's been opened

Maybe one of the MODS could start a sticky with links to Farm Safety information...

I'm part of a suckler discussion group with teagasc. A couple of years ago they brought all 20 of us together for 2 evenings where we drew up Safety Statements with a consultant. We meet the consultant once a year to discuss and update them. Any farm walks that we do have some aspect of farm safety on them too.

If I didn't have that, then it wouldn't be done, I'm afraid. It should be mandatory for all farmers - it would be far more beneficial than those reps courses that are currently mandatory. Or even, we should be required to show that we comply with HSA regulations in order to be able to apply for the Single payment. IMO.

maidhc

bbam wrote: »

Interestingly the HSA farm fafety information shows a bull with ring AND chain attached... I just double checked to be sure..:rolleyes:

Can I ask then how many have completed Farm Safety Statments or reviewed them once created?? We only have a small holding, we created a statment but it's two years since it's been opened

Maybe one of the MODS could start a sticky with links to Farm Safety information...

I often feel, as do many that people who get caught up in "HealthnSafety" are largely motivated by a desire not to do work. On our farm two people work, me and my father. If one or either gets injured it is down to our own negligence.

On a personal level I take risks all the time but I'd like to think I am not reckless. However I do things that I know were an employee to do them and get injured would be utterly indefensible in front of a judge.... i.e. climb ladders, stand on walls, wear runners on a fine day, no sign of a hi vis vest, a few questionable PTO shafts, tractor with no doors, digger with no handbrake... it is all there!

The duty is on an employer to provide a "safe system of work". Having grown up on a farm I think this is an almost impossible onous for a farmer to discharge and remain viable.

What am I saying?

I'd never hire a soul! (and a safety statement won't be enough to get me to errect a scaffold to replace a blown bulb)

reilig

You need to get your hands on a farm safety statement because it takes into account the fact that farm workers are often farm owners. It helps you to assess risks rather than telling you what to do, it makes you think about safer ways of doing things. Health and safety on your farm is "you". It has nothing to do with scaffolding, safety vests or safety boots. Its about you making sure that your farm is safe for you. It doesn't have to be a hassle or something that takes up an awful lot of time. You can use it to set goals for your safety over a couple of years, making small changes every year.

With your post above, you are making too much of a comparison between farm safety and building site safety - there is a major difference.

maidhc wrote: »

I often feel, as do many that people who get caught up in "HealthnSafety" are largely motivated by a desire not to do work. On our farm two people work, me and my father. If one or either gets injured it is down to our own negligence.

On a personal level I take risks all the time but I'd like to think I am not reckless. However I do things that I know were an employee to do them and get injured would be utterly indefensible in front of a judge.... i.e. climb ladders, stand on walls, wear runners on a fine day, no sign of a hi vis vest, a few questionable PTO shafts, tractor with no doors, digger with no handbrake... it is all there!

The duty is on an employer to provide a "safe system of work". Having grown up on a farm I think this is an almost impossible onous for a farmer to discharge and remain viable.

What am I saying?

I'd never hire a soul! (and a safety statement won't be enough to get me to errect a scaffold to replace a blown bulb)

bbam

maidhc wrote: »

I often feel, as do many that people who get caught up in "HealthnSafety" are largely motivated by a desire not to do work. On our farm two people work, me and my father. If one or either gets injured it is down to our own negligence.

On a personal level I take risks all the time but I'd like to think I am not reckless. However I do things that I know were an employee to do them and get injured would be utterly indefensible in front of a judge.... i.e. climb ladders, stand on walls, wear runners on a fine day, no sign of a hi vis vest, a few questionable PTO shafts, tractor with no doors, digger with no handbrake... it is all there!

The duty is on an employer to provide a "safe system of work". Having grown up on a farm I think this is an almost impossible onous for a farmer to discharge and remain viable.

What am I saying?

I'd never hire a soul! (and a safety statement won't be enough to get me to errect a scaffold to replace a blown bulb)

OK so I usually try to keep my posts non personal.... BUT
FFS that's exactly the attitude that gets you on the Indo as a statistic..

Creating a safe working environment isn't all about spending money, that's just the view of a narrow minded section of the population, and not just the farming community either..
I appreciate some aspects will have a cost attached but not all, if you just addressed non-cost issues first it would be a help..

A farm will never be safe.... but it can always be SAFER

Long Term Louth

maidhc wrote: »

I often feel, as do many that people who get caught up in "HealthnSafety" are largely motivated by a desire not to do work. On our farm two people work, me and my father. If one or either gets injured it is down to our own negligence.

On a personal level I take risks all the time but I'd like to think I am not reckless. However I do things that I know were an employee to do them and get injured would be utterly indefensible in front of a judge.... i.e. climb ladders, stand on walls, wear runners on a fine day, no sign of a hi vis vest, a few questionable PTO shafts, tractor with no doors, digger with no handbrake... it is all there!

The duty is on an employer to provide a "safe system of work". Having grown up on a farm I think this is an almost impossible onous for a farmer to discharge and remain viable.

What am I saying?

I'd never hire a soul! (and a safety statement won't be enough to get me to errect a scaffold to replace a blown bulb)

No need for a scaffold to replace a blown bulb


I certainly can see the difficulty with Safety in farming, that said the fact remains, that there are far too many killed at work, who probably if they had taken an interest in H&S may still be alive today.

Safety statements may increase your awareness however they should not be used to satisfy the HSA, but for personal purposes. In relation to the risks you are taking on a daily basis, which by the list above sound as if it would not take too much to remedy.

I know people who have lost body parts using unsafe PTO shafts and believe me they would be glad of a second chance. As I stated earlier it usually takes an accident for a reaction to be taken often then it is too late. But I do sympathise with your situation i.e. only 2 on the farm.

5live

Aw folks come on. New PTO shaft cant cost more than 50 yoyos. How much do you value your life? 49.50 euro? It is a constant investment not all at once. i have to agree with poster saying the idea is to work safer and each day a bit safer. I have a couple of kids and i cant take chances with either myself or them. Accidents happen. I broke a rib 2 years ago and was delighted as if the ladder hadnt hit a gate stored on cubicles then i would be a puddle. 16 foot drop. for once i was thankful i was not as up to date with tidying as i should have been. DONT BECOME A STATISTIC

denis086

Why not try €350 for just a replacement shaft cover for the mower that a plonker split because he was too lazy to get off his arse and flick down the shields at the side that are there for his safety. :mad:
Mind you this reminded me of a funny story i was mowing silage last year on our rented land and the fella we have it taken off plays golf and practices when we have the fields grazed bare but we find the odd ball hes after loosing out in the field but one of these balls came up and gave me a right shot in the back of the head . Lucky it wasnt a stone because i had a fine lump after it. Mind you ive had some near misses with stones in my time too but only lost 1 back window though but the inside of the window in the lh side door has plenty of scratchs though :rolleyes: