SAFETY


Case Study 3: At 7:30am on 27 June 2024, an employee working as a crane operator for an automotive parts manufacturer was using the east crane, an EMH Model ZLK Overhead Gantry Crane (Serial Number 101677). The employee was using the crane’s 20t hoist to lift a 14.5t plastic injection machine mould. A co-worker was working nearby operating the adjacent west crane’s 20t hoist to lift a mould. As the employee hoisted the mould from staging, the wire rope failed. The mould being lifted dropped onto a mould that was staged on the ground under the load causing the steel back plate of the falling mould to shear off during the fall. The 5,000lbs back plate from the falling mould then projected towards the employee and struck him, pinning him underneath. The co-worker witnessed the incident. The employee died from multiple blunt force and crushing injuries.


And large industrial concerns are safety conscious. No large company wants to risk its reputation or its share price – let alone its workforce – by reports of accidents or of unsafe working practices. Safety will be drilled into every employee from the start, and larger companies will employ specialised safety officers to ensure that safe practices are strictly adhered to.


Which is no reason at all for complacency. Accidents, including fatal ones, still happen. HSE categorises the causes of the fatalities it records. Of all those 125 fatalities, 35 were by falling from a height, 18 were “struck by a moving object” (hence possibly relevant to lifting), 17 were “trapped by something moving/overturning” and 13 died from “contact with moving machinery”. Every one of these may have been related to lifting operations, though HSE does not specify them as such. Earlier we pointed out that the fatal accidents had one underlying cause: human error. It may be tempting then to blame them on the human who made that error. That would be simplistic, or indeed incorrect. In law, in the UK, it is not only the hoist or crane operator who has responsibility for preventing accidents. LOLER makes this clear. If you are an employer who provides lifting equipment at work; or if you “have control of the use of lifting equipment”; then you are classed as a “duty holder” in the eyes of the HSE, and of the law. In other words, you do not have to actually own the equipment if, say, you are leasing it, you are just as much a “duty holder” as if you own it outright. And that duty that you hold means that it is your responsibility


to ensure that the lifting equipment in question is safe. It is, therefore, down to you to ensure that the required periodic inspections do in fact happen, at the required intervals; and that full and secure records of those inspections are kept and can be made available. It is also down to you to ensure that the hoist is fit for purpose, appropriate for the task and is suitably marked. For example, the safe working load SWL of the hoist should be clearly visible on it – and so must any differences in the SWL that arise in different configurations of the machine, for example, on a crane where SWL varies with radius of lift. Maintenance must have been performed – both the regular maintenance and any maintenance or repairs whose need is brought to light by the required inspections we have just mentioned. Even if you are self-employed, with a hoist that you yourself own and that only you operate, the regulations – and the responsibilities – still apply. The reason is obvious – you are not the only person at risk from a botched or failed lift. Passers-by can be injured or killed.


Nothing in any of the OSHA or LOLER


regulations and best practice guides is remarkable, or unexpected, or departs in any way from common sense. That, in a way, is the problem – everything in them, and in all that we have written above, is common sense. Causes of accidents are usually easy to spot – after the event, when it is too late. The lesson from that is a simple one: rules, regulations, best practices are there for good reasons. Seven words can sum it up – the price of safety is eternal vigilance.


Case Study 4: At 5:38pm on 9 November 2023, Employee #1, a press associate, was pre-staging a PACCAR door opening panel die that weighed 88.8t for a press machine. Employee #1 moved the die, while standing between two dies with an overhead crane. The die tilted because the crane was not centred over the die. The die moved towards Employee #1 and pinned him between the die and the other die. Employee #1 died from his injuries of traumatic asphyxia at the scene.


34 | November 2025 | www.hoistmagazine.com


Machinery must always be maintained. LOLER CONSULTATION


The Health and Safety Executive is currently gathering information and evidence relating to the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment (LOLER) and whether their scope and application are still fit for purpose. Their call for evidence aims to gather information that the HSE will use to help identify and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens to save businesses time and money without compromising safety; and to understand and identify whether the current application of the regulations reflects technological advances. This is in line with the commitment made in the UK government’s ‘New Approach to ensure Regulators and Regulation Support Growth’ Regulatory Action Plan, or RAP. The HSE call targets companies – manufacturers, importers and suppliers – and users, owners, duty holders and any other organisation holding relevant information. The views of owners and operators of hoists are, therefore, particularly sought here. The information provided will be used to support a review of the LOLER Regulations.


The consultation closes on 11 November 2025.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71