The Student Room Group

HSE non-fatal injuries clarification

To start off, I've got no clue as to what forum this should go under so I went with the default chosen by TSR.

I have been looking at the statistics provided by HSE for 2018/2019 and they include two numbers:

"581,000 workers sustaining a non-fatal injury according to self-reports from the Labour Force Survey in 2018/19"

and

"69,208 Employee non-fatal injuries reported by employers under RIDDOR in 2018/19"

My question is, does this mean that non-fatal work-related injuries are hugely under reported to RIDDOR (aka there were 580k of workers sustaining an injury but only 70k of those were actually reported) or is it something to do with what is actually reportable under RIDDOR (the 510k cases weren't covered by what is reportable under RIDDOR "specified injuries") or perhaps it has something to do with one workers sustaining multiple injuries in one accident or multiple workers sustaining injuries in the same accident?

Can somebody explain? I can't wrap my head around this.
Is this a homework/coursework question, or just a general query for your own intellectual edification? That may help determine which forum it belongs in :wink: @Crazy Jamie might be able to advise on the legal particulars of what "counts" under RIDDOR in either case? :smile:
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 2
Original post by artful_lounger
Is this a homework/coursework question, or just a general query for your own intellectual edification? That may help determine which forum it belongs in :wink: @Crazy Jamie might be able to advise on the legal particulars of what "counts" under RIDDOR in either case? :smile:


That's some fast response time, thanks.

It's for coursework.

I assume the higher number is made up of the RIDDOR reports plus whatever isn't on the specified injuries list, but nowhere does HSE clarify this so it's essentially just a guess.
Reply 3
What is the Labour Force survey criteria for reporting? RIDDOR is a subset of all injuries, the most serious and all which relate to absence of work for more than 7 days
Reply 4
Original post by Zarek
What is the Labour Force survey criteria for reporting? RIDDOR is a subset of all injuries, the most serious and all which relate to absence of work for more than 7 days


I struggled to find any actual criteria, the way RIDDOR sets it out. The most I managed to find is:

"Individuals responding positively to the screening question are then asked whether or not the (most recent) injury resulted from a road accident, and also to confirm whether the injury occurred in their current or most recent job (details of which are recorded as part of the main LFS questioning) or in another job. The respondent is then asked how soon they returned to work following the accident and (from 2006/07) to describe the injury received. Individuals reporting either 'fractured or broken bones' or 'dislocated joints' are further asked to recall which bone/joint was fractured/dislocated. Respondents are asked (from 2006/07) whether they experienced loss of consciousness or hypothermia as a result of the accident and whether they required resuscitation or hospitalisation. Finally respondents are asked to describe how the accident happened (in 2004/05 and from 2006/07).

Respondents were asked some additional questions in certain years: in 2006/07, how many workplace accidents they had sustained over the 12 month period; in 2008/09-2010/11, the year and month of the accident and in 2006/07-2007/08 respondents reporting loss of sight were asked how long they were affected by the sight impairment and respondents who lost consciousness were asked for how long."

Which makes me think that the survey hypothetically includes all work-related injuries, but at the same time the description given above focuses primarily on more serious instances.

I couldn't find if all of these self-reports are included or only a portion meeting some criteria.
Original post by artful_lounger
Is this a homework/coursework question, or just a general query for your own intellectual edification? That may help determine which forum it belongs in :wink: @Crazy Jamie might be able to advise on the legal particulars of what "counts" under RIDDOR in either case? :smile:

You've finally asked something that is outside my expertise! I'm not a personal injury practitioner, so I can't help from the legal standpoint. My understanding is that incidents reportable under RIDDOR are those that result in absence from work, so my immediate suspicion is that the other figure is higher because it deals with all incidents and not just those that result in work absence. But that really is just a mildly educated guess. I'm not much use on this one I'm afraid.
Reply 6
Original post by Crazy Jamie
You've finally asked something that is outside my expertise! I'm not a personal injury practitioner, so I can't help from the legal standpoint. My understanding is that incidents reportable under RIDDOR are those that result in absence from work, so my immediate suspicion is that the other figure is higher because it deals with all incidents and not just those that result in work absence. But that really is just a mildly educated guess. I'm not much use on this one I'm afraid.

I made a similar assumption. Thanks for your help anyway.

I understand you're not a personal injury practitioner but do you maybe know what's the law's perspective on when an accident results from both the employer's and the employee's breach of health and safety regulations? Does that mean neither party has any claim? I assume if a case falls under criminal law then either party can still be held liable?
Original post by Mara1680
I understand you're not a personal injury practitioner but do you maybe know what's the law's perspective on when an accident results from both the employer's and the employee's breach of health and safety regulations? Does that mean neither party has any claim? I assume if a case falls under criminal law then either party can still be held liable?

No, in such circumstances there will usually be a claim. If the employer has breached health and safety regulations, and therefore their own statutory and/or common law duty to the employee, then that is a good basis for a personal injury claim (assuming that the employee sustained personal injury as a result). The extent to which the employee is responsible for their injuries due to their own negligence will be reflected in a reduction for contributory negligence. To give an example, it's generally the case that contributory negligence in a road traffic accident if you're not wearing a seat belt is around 25%. So if someone drives into your car they are responsible for the accident either way, but if you're not wearing a seatbelt your damages can be reduced to reflect your own contributory negligence (i.e. you would not have been hurt as badly if you had been wearing a seatbelt). In some cases contributory negligence can be 100%, although that is rare. It all depends on the facts of the case.

The criminal law question is a little different. If a person is convicted for breaching criminal law they will have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt (which is the standard of proof in criminal cases), so if the same question arises in civil proceedings it will be taken as having been decided the same way, because the standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities (i.e. 51% instead of 98%). Again, to give an example, if there is a personal injury claim involving a road traffic accident, a party will be found to have been negligent if they've previously been found guilty of driving without due care and attention (or more serious charges). So in an employment context, if an employer has been convicted of health and safety breaches in the criminal courts, they will have been found to have breached their duties to an employee for the same actions in the civil courts. So it won't determine the entire claim (the negligence/criminal act will still have to have caused injury, and the extent of the injury may be in dispute), but criminal proceedings may determine the question of whether a breach has occurred.
Reply 8
Original post by Crazy Jamie
No, in such circumstances there will usually be a claim. If the employer has breached health and safety regulations, and therefore their own statutory and/or common law duty to the employee, then that is a good basis for a personal injury claim (assuming that the employee sustained personal injury as a result). The extent to which the employee is responsible for their injuries due to their own negligence will be reflected in a reduction for contributory negligence. To give an example, it's generally the case that contributory negligence in a road traffic accident if you're not wearing a seat belt is around 25%. So if someone drives into your car they are responsible for the accident either way, but if you're not wearing a seatbelt your damages can be reduced to reflect your own contributory negligence (i.e. you would not have been hurt as badly if you had been wearing a seatbelt). In some cases contributory negligence can be 100%, although that is rare. It all depends on the facts of the case.

The criminal law question is a little different. If a person is convicted for breaching criminal law they will have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt (which is the standard of proof in criminal cases), so if the same question arises in civil proceedings it will be taken as having been decided the same way, because the standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities (i.e. 51% instead of 98%). Again, to give an example, if there is a personal injury claim involving a road traffic accident, a party will be found to have been negligent if they've previously been found guilty of driving without due care and attention (or more serious charges). So in an employment context, if an employer has been convicted of health and safety breaches in the criminal courts, they will have been found to have breached their duties to an employee for the same actions in the civil courts. So it won't determine the entire claim (the negligence/criminal act will still have to have caused injury, and the extent of the injury may be in dispute), but criminal proceedings may determine the question of whether a breach has occurred.


That's actually very helpful and makes so much more sense than what I initially thought.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it in such detail (the examples very very useful too).

Quick Reply

Latest