A distribution firm has been fined £200,000 plus £16,993 costs following a prosecution by the HSE. The prosecution concerned an incident in which the owner of a Cornish vineyard died after a delivery of empty wine bottles crashed onto him when they fell from the tail lift of a lorry he was helping to unload.

Gregory Distribution Ltd pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act by exposing someone to risk.

George Musgrave, 66, was trapped beneath 1,338 glass bottles that fell from the back of a delivery lorry belonging to Gregory Distribution Ltd.

The company admitted a series of failures that caused the fatal incident at Polmassick Vineyard, near St Austell, on April 15, 2008.

Judge Christopher Elwen at Truro Crown Court heard that the delivery driver, Jonathan Walsh, was sent to work for the company by the Drivers Agency in Exeter because the normal employee was unavailable.   The court heard he had not received adequate training or been provided with appropriate equipment on the seven-and-a-half tonne truck to make his deliveries safely.

As the driver attempted to unload the pallet of wine bottles onto the tail lift of the truck, it accelerated towards father-of- two Mr Musgrave who died from serious head and spinal injuries when the load – which weighed more than half a tonne – landed on him.

Prosecuting, Rupert Lowe, said the driver was "operating blind" at the time of the incident, adding:

"Mr Walsh pushed the load forward without ensuring the area around the operation was clear."

Gregory Distribution had previously pleaded guilty to failing section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 at a hearing in June.

The HSE's investigation found that the pallet truck was incompatible for use with the tail lift fitted to the lorry.

In addition, the crate which killed George Musgrave was inaccurately labelled as weighing 500kg, instead of its 612.8kg actual weight.

Mr Lowe said there were a number of measures that could have been taken to avert the tragedy, including the use of an additional pallet truck and checking the area around the lorry was clear, but that it generally amounted to a failure to ensure that the driver was properly trained

HSE Inspector, Simon Jones, said:

"This tragic accident highlights the dangers involved in unloading large and heavy loads using a tail lift. Employers should ensure that employees are given the right equipment, information, instruction and training to allow them to unload loads safely.”

“Where employers use the services of agency staff they should ensure that those agency staff are aware of the systems of work in place and have the skills and training to undertake the required tasks."

"Tail lifts should be examined by a competent person at least every six months to ensure that they are safe to use. If these simple measures had been taken then this accident would not have happened and Mr Musgrave would not have died in these tragic circumstances."

The court heard that in 2009 Gregory Distribution Ltd had an annual turnover of £91.3m, with post-tax profits of £3m.

Defending, James Bennett said there was a formal agreement in place between the company and the agency which had supplied the driver, with the latter promising to carry out full interviews and skill assessments.   He said although Gregory Distribution spent £900,000 on driver training,

"the company is the first to accept that the driver supplied was no where near competent enough and they failed on that occasion".

Fining the company £200,000 plus £16,993 prosecutions costs, Judge Christopher Elwen said:

"The court extends its condolences to the family of Mr Musgrave”

"It is the function of the Crown Court to punish the organisation responsible for this tragic death, but no sentence can adequately reflect the outcome of this accident."

He added that the company had been operating since 1919 without any fatalities, saying it

"generally adopted a responsible attitude towards health and safety".

In a statement, Gregory Distribution said it

"greatly regrets the circumstances behind the death of George Musgrave and accepts the findings of the court."

All of this tragedy has so far been dealth with under criminal law.   However, the horrific accident was witnessed by Mr Musgrave's wife Barbara and it is understood the family is now pursuing civil proceedings against Gregory Distribution Ltd.

David Jones, CDM2007.org’s Editor-in-Chief comments that this tragic accident provides a number of serious messages that must be taken across any workplace where materials are delivered by road vehicles.   These messages are not only about the handling of the materials but are also dealing with the underlying safety culture and management regime that must prevail to maintain safe working and safe systems of work.

“This case highlights the vital need for operatives to be competent and appropriately trained.   The Judge heard that the delivery driver was an agency employee because the normal employee was unavailable.   The evidence revealed that he had not received adequate training or been provided with appropriate equipment on the seven-and-a-half tonne truck to make his deliveries safely”

“The HSE's investigation also revealed that the lorry had been adapted and was incompatible for use with the tail lift fitted.   The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations [PUWER] contains important provisions that must be observed when adapting mechanical woek equipment”

“The crate which killed George Musgrave was inaccurately labelled as weighing 500kg, instead of its 612.8kg actual weight.   It is vital to know the correct weight when handling any load and this is an essential requirement to comply with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 [LOLER] which states that tail lifts should be thoroughly examined every six months under Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974”

“The Prosecutor made the point that the driver was "operating blind" at the time of the incident,   It is absolutely essential to have proper control of the work area and surroundings with appropriate means in place to prevent such accidents”

“It is essential for any work operations that specific risk assessments are made by competent persons and the outcomes of such assessments are properly communicated throughout the chain of operations”

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states that employers should, as far as reasonably practical, not expose people not in their employment to a risk to their safety.

Ed.