Current location:home page > Laws and regulations

Firms fined after death at food processing plant construction site

admin2 weeks ago (05-19)Laws and regulations15
Clegg Food Projects and O. Turner Insulation were fined under the Construction (Design and Managemen…
Clegg Food Projects and O. Turner Insulation were fined under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Martin McMenemy of Grimsby, UK, was working for O. Turner Insulation, also of Grimsby, on the construction of a food processing plant in, Leicester, UK on 12 April 2008.

He was using a scissor lift, an extendable platform, to install wall and ceiling panels when he drove it unwittingly toward and into the shallow uncovered recess.

The vehicle overturned and McMenemy was thrown out and later died in hospital of head injuries.

Preventable incident

Leicester Crown Court heard last week the incident could have been prevented had the hole been covered with a metal plate or cordoned off.

O. Turner Insulation, of Estate Road No 4, South Humberside Industrial Estate, Grimsby, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 13(2) and 37(6) of the regulations and was fined £22,500 with £12,806 costs.

Clegg Food Projects Ltd, of High Pavement, Nottingham, admitted breaching Regulations 22(1)(a) and 37(6) and was fined £22,500 with £12,674 costs.

Failed to take simple precautions

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that O. Turner Insulation and principal contractor Clegg Food Projects had failed to take simple precautions to cover the hole.

According to the firm’s website, Clegg Food Projects has:
 “…developed unique, specialist expertise in the design, project management, construction and refurbishment of food and drink processing and distribution facilities.

“We have extensive experience and a comprehensive understanding of food and drink sector projects, from inception through to commissioning.”

After the hearing HSE Inspector Stephen Farthing said: "This was an entirely preventable tragedy. A family has been left without a father because simple precautions were not taken to eliminate what was an obvious hazard.

"Both companies had a duty to plan, manage and monitor the work being carried out under their control, but failed in that duty."

Related articles

Britain intends to strengthen control over raw milk production

According to the Food Standards Agency of the United Kingdom, the Food Standards Agency of the Unite…

New standards for all pulses, pearl millet grains & couscous in force

The country’s apex food regulator, in a bid to further expedite the process of standard-setting, has…

FSSAI gazette notified stds for supplements for two- & three-year-olds

For the first time, FSSAI has gazette notified the standards for formulated supplements with all app…

Canada will formally implement the Canadian Food Safety Ordinance two months later.

According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), on November 15, 2018, the Canadian Food Ins…

FDA’s new plan to advance plant, animal biotechnology innovation

Innovations in plant and animal biotechnology offer tremendous opportunities for advancing public he…

Food Stamps Major Focus During Day 1 Of Farm Bill Conference

“A compromise may be brewing via tightening rules under which states can get waivers from work requi…