Karl Malton: Health & Whose Safety?

The recent story of Crowland father of three Karl Malton, who died in tragic circumstances aged just 32 following an accident last year involving a motor vehicle, highlights just how our emergency services are being tied up in Health and Safety rules and regulations.

Karl died when he was hit by a vehicle while walking on the B1166 Whipchicken Road late at night in May last year. As a result of the collision he landed face down apparently unconscious in 18 inches of water in the dyke alongside the road. It was reported that paramedics first arrived on the scene within 14 minutes of the incident being reported by the driver of the vehicle. Unfortunately, a search of the immediate area failed to locate Karl. The search was done on the near-side of the vehicle even though damage to the vehicle was on the off-side. It was not until an ambulance arrived 19 minutes later that they found Karl face down in the dyke. However, it was deemed too dangerous for the emergency services to attempt a rescue. Even the arrival of the Fire Service some 28 minutes later did not instigate Karl´s rescue, as they too gave the same assessment preferring instead to call out a specialist rescue team from Lincoln. An inquest into Karl´s death heard that he died of drowning and recorded a verdict of accidental death.

Over the last few years, a pervasive creep of Health and Safety rules, regulations and edicts has blighted the social and professional landscape of the UK. Councils in particular appear to be inflicted with a peculiar spate of decisions which have impacted upon public services and amenities. For example, one local authority now expects visitors to its local swimming pool to swim breadths not lengths, as the lifeguard on duty has difficulty in keeping proper observation. And more tragically, we have heard of the two Community Support Officers who stood and watched as a 10-year-old boy got into difficulties in a pond in Wigan and drowned. Their reluctance or perhaps their refusal to come to his rescue a combination of what their instructions were in such circumstances based upon Health and Safety regulations. Or perhaps, as is being reported, it´s now unnecessary for some members of the emergency services not to be able to swim or possess a life-saving qualification, all part of the training some years back.

But where is this to be traced; why are we turning into a nation of passive observers to other people´s misfortune? And why are our emergency services risk assessing almost every incident? One reason can be traced to the number of no-win-no-fee solicitors willing to take on a case, extracting their pay from costs awarded or a percentage of the spoils. Legal redress for the masses unfortunately now includes both the deserving and undeserving alike, where the frivolous and most tenuous claims are nothing more than a legal punt, without risk to the punter. Yet another product exported by the USA and warmly received by a litigious consumer under the heading of a free and open market. Add to this the Human Rights Act and we now have a tinderbox of litigation ready to ignite at the least spark.

Local authorities and other organisations are now mindful of possible litigation from an injury inflicted in the course of a person´s work or other duties. As a result insurance companies providing an organisation with insurance cover push up the premiums at the same time as imposing strict rules, often this involves providing risk assessment of the work an individual might undertake. In such situations protection is not sought for the employee but as a protection to the employer and the insurance company.

Imagine the scene: a burning house in which the owner repeatedly attempts to enter the burning building to rescue his child who is trapped on the top floor. He is repeatedly prevented from entering the house by the police who consider it too dangerous. Emotions and adrenaline drive the father forward into doing what most observers might think an heroic act. If the father pulls the child out of the building without harm then it will be front page stories of bravery and heroism. More than likely, the police officer involved will be facing a disciplinary charge for failing to stop the rescue. If the rescue attempt failed and both father and child perished, then it´s likely that relatives of the father and child (but more accurately the no-win-no-fee lawyers) will sue the police for failing to prevent the father from entering the building.

And in the case of Karl Malton on that tragic night in May 2008, emergency workers were prevented from attempting to rescue Karl, not because it might have been too dangerous compared to what they might have faced only a decade earlier, but whether it might have been too expensive in the event one of the rescue workers received injury in the process. Sad as it is, it´s all too easy for people to follow the money, as it's far too easy today for people to see the blame when there might be a claim.

Our deep sympathies to Karl´s family and friends. Hopefully, something positive might come of his very tragic death.