Tesco has received a substantial fine from Southwark Crown Court after an investigation into a Tesco worker foot accident revealed failings in health and safety procedures.
On 7th August 2009, Mohammed Ferdous (31) was working in the basement of the Tesco Metro store in Victoria, central London, when he was asked to assist with a fresh food delivery. His role involved waiting at the lift entrance in the basement, retrieving cages of food sent down from the street level and returning the empty cages up in the lift.
When the second load descended, Mohammed stepped forward to retrieve the cages and used his right foot as leverage to help him extract them from the lift. Mohammed inadvertently placed his foot into a gap between the floor of the lift and the lift shaft and, when the lift car suddenly shifted down, his foot was crushed by the weight of the lift car.
Colleagues were unable to free Mohammed´s foot for ten minutes, during which time his toes were irreparably damaged and had to be amputated. Mohammed will never be able to walk normally again and was unable to work for more than a year after the accident.
Mohammed made a claim for Tesco worker foot accident injury compensation, which was settled for an undisclosed amount in 2013; however Tesco was prosecuted – along with lift maintenance company Otis – after an investigation into the accident revealed that no maintenance inspections had been conducted on the lift during a nine-month period.
Both Tesco and Otis were charged with contravening health and safety regulations, contrary to Section 33 (1) (c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and, after pleading guilty to the charges, magistrates at Southwark Crown Court fined the supermarket giant £115,000 and Otis £110,000 for their negligence which led to the Tesco worker foot accident.
Speaking after the fines had been administered, Westminster City Council’s food, health and safety manager – James Armitage – said that the Tesco worker foot accident had been “entirely preventable” and would have been avoided if the two companies had “collectively ensured that the lift was properly maintained”.Read More