The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 were brought in to assess risks and take action to ensure the health and safety of the users of floors.
How Employers should prevent slips and trips!
Employers should assess the risk of slips and trips in the workplace to protect both the employees and other users of the floor. Every employer should make arrangements relative to their size and organisation to review the preventative and protective measures which could be taken to avoid risks. Employers should ensure that their employees are provided with such health surveillance which is appropriate, which has regard to any risks which have been identified from their assessment.
Danger Areas
Employers need to establish and take action where a potential danger could arise in regard to one or more of their employees. Where a danger has been identified, and so far as it is reasonably practicable, employers should protect any person from a danger by informing them of the hazard and take steps to protect them from it.
What information should be provided to employees?
Employees should be provided with information on the risk to health and safety identified by the assessment and any preventative or protective measures taken by the employer.
What about Floors?
All floors should be constructed in a way which is suitable for what they are used for. This means that they will not contain any holes, slope or uneven surface to give a risk to the health and safety of the user and the floor should have effective drainage where necessary. Where reasonably practicable, floors should be free from obstructions which could cause someone to slip or fall.
EXAMPLE: The case of Ellis v Bristol City Council in the Supreme Court provides a good example working in another employer’s place of work. In this case Ellis was working in a home for the elderly and mentally infirm, run by Bristol City Council. Many of the residents were incontinent and Ellis slipped on a pool of urine and was injured as a result.
There were two issues arising from this floor, either the floor was constructed insufficiently, or the floor was not free from obstructions. The court found that because the urination was so frequent, the floor was “unduly slippery”, which meant that the construction of the floor was insufficient rather than the responsibility to just clean the urine.
