by the WSH Construction Committee in collaboration with ... By Falling Objects.… · conduct a hazard analysis and develop a method statement for the outstanding reinstatement work

This compilation of case studies on fatalities in the construction industryis initiated by the Workplace Safety and Health Council, and put togetherby the WSH Construction Committee in collaboration with the Ministryof Manpower. This booklet depicts how the accidents occurred andprovides valuable learning points on how they may have been prevented.This is the first in a series of such booklets to be published.

As much as the next few years promise to be exciting for the constructionindustry, they also pose a great challenge to the industry to maintainworkplace safety and health. Construction sites have customarily beenviewed as high-risk workplaces, which more often than not have a higherincidence of workplace fatalities. We must address this perception andchange the reality. While construction workers strive to complete a buildingor facility, it is important that they do not risk life and limb. It is crucialthat these workers go home safely after work each day.

This booklet of case studies offers insights to all in the industry on howthese tragic accidents occurred, so that we may glean important, life-saving lessons from the experience. In learning from our past mistakes,we can and must prevent these mishaps from happening again. Togetherwith your help, we can transform construction sites into safe and healthyworkplaces for our workers.

Mr Lee Tzu Yang ChairmanWorkplace Safety and Health Council

PREFACE

Case 1 Pinned by a brick wall 64

Case 2 Pinned by a collapsed roof slab 67

Case 3 Struck by falling beams 70

Case 4 Struck by steel beams 73

Case 5 Struck by falling material in a trench 76

Case 6 Struck by a crane boom 78

Case 7 Hit by a collapsed wall 81

Case 8 Hit by steel rebars 84

Case 9 Buried under collapsed soil 87

Case 10 Crushed by a collapsing boom 90

Case 11 Struck by falling timber 92

Case 12 Struck by a falling crane boom 95

Case 13 Struck by a collapsed wall 97

Electrocution

Case 1 Electrocution by a faulty residual circuit breaker 100

Case 2 Killed by an exposed electrode holder 103

Struck By or Against Objects / Machines

Case 1 Hit by a scissors lift platform 108

Case 2 Hit by a moving vehicle 111

Case 3 Hit by a moving crane 114

Struck by Falling Objects

STRUCK BY FALLING OBJECTS

Struck By Falling Objects 64

Description of Accident

A worker was constructing a newdrain inside an excavation in frontof a building under construction.While he was leveling the concretefor the new drain, a brick wall(left behind from the old drain)collapsed from the side of theexcavation and pinned himunder it, killing him on the spot.

Causes and ContributingFactors

• The brick walls were constructed on both banks of the old drainto retain the soil.

• Before constructing the newdrain, one bank of the old drainwas removed and the area was excavated so as to facilitate the construction process. Theother bank was not removedas it did not obstruct the construction of the new drain.

CASE 1PINNED BY A BRICK WALL

1. A staircase in the worksite2. The section of brick wall that sank3. The excavation4. Formwork for the second section of the

drain was to be constructed here5. The new retaining wall6. This side of the brick wall was removed7. Formwork for the first section of the drain

1. Site of accident

• Investigations revealed that thecollapse of the brick wall was dueto soil movement in the excavation compounded bythe heavy rain prior to the accident. The main contractor did

not provide shoring for the existing brick wall to prevent it from collapsing into the excavation when the workers were working inside the excavation.

Evaluation of loss • One worker killed

Type of contact • Caught between or under object

Immediate cause(s) • Inadequate guards or barriers

Basic cause(s) • Inadequate assessment of loss exposure• Inadequate leadership and/or supervision• Inadequate work standards

Failure of SMS • Hazard analysis and risk assessment • WSH training and competence

• WSH inspections

Root Cause Analysis


Follow-up

A Stop Work Order was issued to the main contractor, which requiredthem to rectify the safety contraventions and to also engage aprofessional engineer to carry out detailed soil investigationsand to develop a method statement for the construction of thenew drain as well as shoring for the excavation.

Recommendations

Check the integrity and strength of any retaining structure priorto an excavation.

Remove any brick wall, if present, prior to a reconstruction.

During a downpour, cover and protect all uncompleted concretingwork or brick-laying work with plastic or canvas sheets. The samepractice should apply for excavated trench sides and stockpilesof excavated soil. No one should be allowed to be in the vicinity.


67Struck By Falling Objects


The accident occurred during thedemolition of an automated tellermachine (ATM) kiosk. After thesupporting walls of the kioskhad been largely demolished,the roof slab collapsed under itsown weight and a worker waspinned underneath it.


• The roof slab was resting on and supported by three brick wallsof the ATM kiosk.

• Demolition of the brick wallswas carried out without providing any shoring to support theweight of the roof slab andprevent it from collapsing.

• After the brick walls were demolished, the roof slab wasleft without any support and it crashed down under its own weight.

• The worker was standing underthe roof slab when it collapsedon him.

1. The collapsed roof slab2. The remaining rear portion of the

left brick wall

1. The roof slab of the ATM kiosk involvedin the accident

2. The deceased was pinned under theslab here

3. The front end of the roof slab (marble cladding removed)

CASE 2PINNED BY A COLLAPSED ROOF SLAB


Type of contact • Caught between or under object


Basic cause(s) • Inadequate leadership and/or supervision• Inadequate work standards• Lack of knowledge

Failure of SMS • Hazard analysis and risk assessment• WSH practices and procedures

Root Cause Analysis

68 Struck By Falling Objects

Follow-up

The main contractor has to engage a professional engineer toconduct a hazard analysis and develop a method statement for theoutstanding reinstatement work.

The bank concerned indicated that they will engage a professionalengineer to develop the method statement for all future demolitionof ATM kiosks.

A circular was sent to all banks with ATMs to alert them of the circumstances leading to this accident and to urge them to play amore proactive role to provide relevant information to theircontractors before work commencement.

Recommendations

Shore the roof slab prior to the demolition of brick walls.

Alternatively, demolish or remove the roof slab first beforethe walls.

Carry out a thorough inspection by a competent person to determinethe ATM kiosk’s structural arrangement prior to work commencementespecially if there are no construction drawings of the ATM kiosk.

Conduct continuous inspection by a competent person during thedemolition of the ATM kiosk to detect the hazards of any collapsingstructure (roof slab) resulting from weakened supporting brick walls.




A stack of steel beams wereplaced near an excavated area.The beams toppled and landedinto the excavated area wheretwo workers were working.One worker was killed andanother was injured.


• Steel beams were to be installedas supporting structures for theexcavation.

• The beams were placed about350mm away from the excavatedarea and each beam weighedabout 500kg.

• The steel beams were not placedin a stable manner and werevery close to the edge of the excavated area.

CASE 3STRUCK BY FALLING BEAMS

1. The injured worker was tasked to cleanmud on the sheet pile

2. The deceased was tasked to weld ametal plate onto the sheet pile

3. Sheet pile

1. Excavation started from here2. The 24 ‘I’ beams that were stored

directly above the place of work3. Place of accident4. Toppled beams5. Excavation ended here6. Excavator was shifting these metal

plates prior to accident

• Digging work within theexcavated area might have destabilised the stack of steel beams and vibrations from theexcavators further contributedto the instability.

• The main contractor did not engage a site safety supervisoras required by regulation.

Evaluation of loss • One worker killed and one injured

Type of contact • Struck by object

Immediate cause(s) • Improper placement• Failure to secure

Basic cause(s) • Inadequate leadership and/or supervision• Lack of experience• Inadequate work standards


Root Cause Analysis


Follow-up

A Stop Work Order (SWO) was issued to the main contractor whichrequired them to put in place a safety organisational structure andmanagement system to better manage the project as well as rectifythe unsafe site condition.

The SWO also required the project management staff of the maincontractor to attend a safety training workshop organised by OSHD.

Workers of the worksite were also required to attend the “SafetyOrientation Course for Construction Workers” conducted by OSHD.This was to increase their awareness and knowledge about sitesafety.

Recommendations

Conduct risk assessment prior to job commencement.

Stack materials properly so as to prevent materials from falling andpractice good housekeeping to prevent accidents.

Do not conduct multiple hazardous activities at the same time orin the same place. In this case, heavy materials were stored neara deep excavation.


• It was also found that the boom hoist wire rope was not of the typethat the manufacturer had specified.


Two workers were standing on thedeck of a lorry to unload steelbeams. The lorry which wasunmanned and parked on a slope,rolled down the slope.

The steel beams swung off themoving lorry and hit the workers.One worker died while the othersuffered some cuts.


• The lorry loader driver hadswitched off the engine and engaged the hand brakeof the lorry. However, he didnot place stoppers behind the wheels of the lorry whichwould have prevented the lorry from rolling downthe slope.

• The slope was cut at a gradient of one to seven which is considered steep for a workplace. Despite its steepness, the occupier did not impose the necessary safety precautions before allowing liftingoperations to be carried out.

CASE 4STRUCK BY STEEL BEAMS


1. Crawler crane2. Lorry involved in the accident3. Slope4. Steel beams5. The deceased

1. Crawler crane2. Lorry3. Steel beams

Evaluation of loss • One worker killed and one injured


Immediate cause(s) • Failure to secure

Basic cause(s) • Lack of experience• Inadequate work standards


Root Cause Analysis


Follow-up

The occupier reviewed and improved the lifting operations onthe slope area.

The lifting personnel were instructed that no lifting operation isto be carried out on the slope area.

If lifting operations are to be carried out on the slope area due toan unavoidable situation, the following precautions are to be taken:

• To reduce the amount of load to be unladed onto the lorry.

• The lorry driver is to place stoppers to prevent the lorry from sliding down the slope.

Recommendations

Place stoppers behind the wheels of the lorry before any loadingand unloading.

Provide regular safety briefings to drivers on loading andunloading procedures.

Take extra care to ensure the safety of personnel working nearcrane operations.



Worker A was supervising theexcavation of a trench. The bankof the trench collapsed and WorkerA was found inside the trench,partially covered with the graniterocks and quarry dust that slidfrom the bank. He had sufferedsevere head injury and waspronounced dead at the scene.


• Prior to the accident, the project manager checked the excavation work and saw that the depthof the trench had not met requirements.

• He told Worker A to installshoring for the trench before further excavation.

• Worker A then tasked two other workers to carry out shoring work for the trench.

• While the workers went to fetch the timbers, Worker A was seen going into the trench to check for any underground servicesthat might be located near the

CASE 5STRUCK BY FALLING MATERIAL IN A TRENCH


1. The deceased was found here2. The “changkol”3. The crow-bar4. The collapsed quarry dust and

granite rocks5. The tarmac6. The granite rocks7. The quarry dust

1. The new substation2. The excavator used for excavating

the trench3. The timbers to be used for shoring4. The trench was located here

trench. This was to ensure the services would not be damagedwhen the timbers (shoring support) were inserted intothe ground.

• The trench collapsed and granite rocks and quarry dust landed on Worker A.




Basic cause(s) • Inadequate work standards• Lack of experience


Root Cause Analysis


Recommendations

Provide shoring prior to allowing entry into an excavation.

Conduct risk assessment of hazards prior to work commencement.

Conduct regular safety briefings/tool box meetings before entryinto an excavation.

Follow-up

A Stop Work Order was issued.


• When the crane operator’s visionwas partially obstructed, he did not wait for the signalman to get to the top of the buildingto give him further instructions


CASE 6STRUCK BY A CRANE BOOM


A crane operator was operatinga crawler crane to install a pre-caststaircase. He hoisted the pre-caststaircase from the ground to aheight just above the buildingthat was still under construction.

As his view of the unloadingwas partially obstructed by thebuilding column, he inched thecrane forward causing the craneto tilt forward and collapse.

The crane operator was trapped inthe cabin but subsequently freedhimself with the help of otherworkers.

A worker who was working atabout 33m away from the crane,was hit by the boom when thecrane collapsed.

1. The pre-cast staircase

1. Location where the deceased was hitby the falling boom

2. The second piece of the pre-cast staircase

and proceeded to move the crane forward with the suspended load in order toobtain an unobstructed view

of the unloading position.This was not a safe practice.

• Investigations concluded that the collapse of the crane was due to the crane moving beyond the steel plates which caused the crane’s crawler

“track” to dip into the ground and tilt to an extent that thecrane was unstable.

• Investigations also revealedthat the maximum safe workingload of the collapsed crane(i.e. 5880kg) as certified bythe approved person was exceeded. The pre-caststaircase weighed 7200kg.


Type of contact • Caught between or under object (crushed)

Immediate cause(s) • Improper lifting

Basic cause(s) • Improper attempt to save time

Failure of SMS • WSH practices and procedures

Root Cause Analysis

Follow-up

The occupier was instructed not to exceed the maximum safeworking load as verified by the approved person (authorisedexaminer) when operating the lifting machines (cranes).

The occupier was also instructed to review and enhance the SafetyManagement System (SMS).


Recommendations

Check the crane base/foundation prior to lifting.

Conduct proper risk assessment to ensure that the risk exposure isreduced to as low as reasonably practicable.

Crane operators should not take ad-hoc decisions withoutassessing the overall situation.

Ensure continuous supervision for all lifting operations.




A worker was demolishing apartition brick wall inside a toiletat the third floor of a building.He was hit by a wall that collapsedon him. He was subsequentlysent to hospital where he passedaway on the same day.


• Investigations revealed that the worker had hacked the partition wall from the bottom sectionusing a 10-pound hammer.The collapsed wall weighedabout 300kg.

• The partition wall was simply resting on the ground andabutted against the adjacentmain wall. There was no interlocking joint betweenthe partition wall and themain wall.

• Hacking of walls should startfrom the top section and shouldbe extended down progressivelyso as to maintain its stability.

CASE 7HIT BY A COLLAPSED WALL

1. The 10-pound hammer that was usedfor the hacking operation

1. Partition wall that had collapsed andhit the deceased on the head

2. The concrete breaker that was usedfor removing the wall tiles


Type of contact • Caught between or under object (crushed)

Immediate cause(s) • Improper position for task

Basic cause(s) • Lack of knowledge


Root Cause Analysis

Follow-up

The occupier was instructed to undertake the followingimprovements to the work practices/conditions at the site:

• Prior to demolition work, the supervisor should check thesite and brief the workers properly to ensure that they fully understand the safe work procedures and sequencing of work.Interpretation from native workers should be employedwhen necessary.

• Workers should be grouped into teams of two or more when carrying out demolition work.

In this case, a wrong sequence ofdemolishing the partition wallwas employed (i.e. from bottomsection first).

• Coupled with the weak design of the partition wall, it resultedin the structural collapse ofthe wall.


Recommendations

Provide proper design and shoring of the wall.

Follow proper sequence of demolition.

Provide supervision during demolition to ensure that the workerworks safely.




A lorry driver had delivered twobundles of rebars to a worksite.Two other workers assisted him inthe unloading of rebars.

While the lorry driver and otherworkers were unloading a bundleof steel rebars from the lorry usingthe lorry crane, the bundle ofrebars fell onto the lorry driver.


• The rebars measured 12m longand 10mm in diameter.

• One end of the bundle of rebars was lifted from the lorry andplaced on the ground.

• The other end of the samebundle, which was placed onthe top of a bracket above thefront of the lorry, slid downfrom the lorry and hit the lorry driver who was operating thelorry crane at the time ofaccident.

CASE 8HIT BY STEEL REBARS

1. The deceased was operating thelorry crane in this position

1. Rebars bundles

• Site investigations indicated that the boom length of the crane was about 7.5m in whichthe recommended safe working load was about 1730kg. However, the weightof the bundle of rebars was more than 2000kg. Hence the workers had to lift the bundle of rebars at one end

as the lorry crane could not withstand the full load ofthe bundle.

• The lorry driver and the two workers had not undergone any training course in riggingoperations. The lifting supervisor was also not informed of the lifting activity.


Type of contact • Struck by moving object

Immediate cause(s) • Improper lifting

Basic cause(s) • Lack of knowledge• Lack of skill• Inadequate supervision

Failure of SMS • WSH training and competence

Root Cause Analysis


Follow-up

The occupier was instructed to undertake the followingimprovements to the work practices/conditions at the site:

• To review their lifting procedures and improve the communicationchannels between the lifting supervisor and the trade foremen.

• To increase the manpower stationed at the entrance of the worksite to ensure that the cranes coming into their worksites are properly attended to.


Recommendations

Ensure that the capacity of crane is greater than the load tobe lifted.

Closely supervise a lifting operation.

Improve lifting procedures and ensure that it is communicated toall lifting personnel.



• The depth of the excavation measured 2.9m.

• The sides of the excavationwere almost 90°. They werenot shored. The adjacent excavations were also not even partially shored.

• The senior resident engineer of the worksite confirmed that hacking and placing of lean concrete work were carried out inside the excavation before it was shored.

CASE 9BURIED UNDER COLLAPSED SOIL


Worker A and his co-workerswere working inside an excavationin a multistorey carpark. Worker Awas trimming the side of theexcavation when the soil suddenlycollapsed and pinned him downup to his chest level.

Worker A was rescued fromthe collapsed soil and sent tothe hospital where he subsequently passed away.

1. Collapsed soil2. Timber planks3. Ladder

1. Shovel2. Timber planks3. The deceased was found underneath

this chunk of soil4. Pile heads5. Lean concrete

• The operator of the excavator confirmed that hacking work tothe pile-caps was carried out bya breaker deployed at the edgeof the excavation before it was shored.

• The accident occurred becausethe factory occupier did not provide shoring to the excavation before allowingthe workers to work there.


Type of contact • Caught between or under (crushed)


Basic cause(s) • Inadequate work standards


Root Cause Analysis


Follow-up

The occupier was instructed to submit safe work procedures forall excavation work on site and ensure that all workers follow thesafe practices.

Recommendations

Provide shoring prior to any work in an excavation exceeding 1.5m.

Provide close supervision for any work in an excavation.

Conduct regular checks on excavation side stability.




• Investigations revealed thatthe boom hoist wire that was supporting the boom had snapped, thus causing the crane boom to collapse onthe workers.

CASE 10CRUSHED BY A COLLAPSING BOOM


A crawler crane mounted on acrane barge was lifting two cratesof acetylene and oxygen cylindersover to a jetty mooring dolphin.

After the crane boom had swungover to the dolphin, the cranesuddenly vibrated violently.

The next moment, the craneboom came crashing down.

A worker was crushed by thecollapsing boom and died onthe spot. Another workersuffered leg injury caused bythe falling crates of acetyleneand oxygen cylinders.

1. View of the dolphin and the EmergencySafety Access

Overview of collapsed crane

• The cause of the accident wasmost probably due to the poormaintenance of the boom hoist wire rope. Excessive wear/abrasion on the wire rope surfaces might have resulted in the sudden fractureof the boom hoist wire.

• The boom wire rope used on the crane involved in the accident was of inadequate strength. The wire rope used had a breaking strength of37 tons but according to the manufacturer’s specification, it should be 41.9 tons.


Type of contact • Struck by falling object

Immediate cause(s) • Defective tools, equipment or materials

Basic cause(s) • Inadequate maintenance

Failure of SMS • WSH practices and procedures• WSH inspection

Root Cause Analysis

Recommendations

Ensure planned maintenance.

Ensure regular inspection.

Ensure the hoist wire of the crane is sufficiently strong withan appropriate factor of safety.




• The timber formwork for the wetjoint at the nineth storey‘s lift shaft lobby was supported and held in position by two horizontaland two vertical metal props.

CASE 11STRUCK BY FALLING TIMBER


Worker A and his co-worker wereto dismantle formwork for the wetjoint at a lift lobby of a lift shaft,from the seventh to 12th storey.

Worker A had loosened ahorizontal prop that was used tosecure two timber formworkpieces on both sides of the wallof the nineth storey lift lobby.

The timber piece on one side fellinto the lift shaft opening andstruck Worker A who was clearingdebris at the bottom of the liftshaft. Worker A suffered serioushead injuries and succumbed tohis injuries on the same day.

1. The new lift shaft under construction

1. This timber fell into the lift shaft opening

2. The lift shaft opening3. The timber formwork for the

wet joint4. The plywood fencing was put up

after the accident5. The position of the lower

horizontal prop6. Deceased was squatting here when

loosening the horizontal metal prop

• Prior to the accident, one workerhad removed the two vertical props and the higher of thetwo horizontal props. The timber piece on one side fell into the lift shaft opening afterhe had loosened the lower horizontal prop, which wasthe last prop holding the timberformwork in position.

• At the time of the accidentthe lift shaft opening was not fenced or covered with any plywood or other material.The falling timber fell intothe lift shaft opening andstruck Worker A who was clearing debris at the bottomof the lift shaft.


Type of contact • Struck by falling object


Basic cause(s) • Inadequate work standards• Inadequate leadership and/or supervision

Failure of SMS • Hazard analysis and risk management• WSH practices and procedures

Root Cause Analysis


Follow-up

The occupier was instructed to implement the following safetymeasures:

• The foreman-in-charge is to check and ensure that lift shaft openings are securely fenced with timber prior to assigningworkers to dismantle formwork at the lift lobby.

• No worker is to be assigned to work in the lift pit if any work is carried out above.

• Workers assigned to dismantle formwork are to be instructed to check for the presence of the fencing of the lift shaft openings prior to the commencement of work. They should stop workand report to their supervisor if the lift shaft opening is notsecurely barricaded.


Recommendations

Ensure proper supervision.

Ensure that incompatible work is not carried out simultaneouslyat a particular location.



• Investigations revealed that the boom hoist wire rope that was supporting the boom had snapped, causing the crane boomto collapse onto the workers.

• Laboratory findings indicated that the wire rope had failedas a result of accelerated fatigue.This means that the failure had occurred in the internal areas of the wire rope which are hardto detect during a routinevisual inspection.

CASE 12STRUCK BY A FALLING CRANE BOOM


A crawler crane operated by aworker was lifting a bundle ofrebars from the ground floor to thesecond storey of an uncompletedbuilding.

When the bundle of rebars wasabout to be unloaded, the craneboom suddenly collapsed.

Two workers were killed andanother injured as a result of thecollapsed boom.

1. Rebars bundle2. Main hook block3. One of the deceased was hit and pinned

under the fly jib here4. Auxiliary hook block

1. Gantry bridle2. Boom hoist wire rope3. A completely broken portion (about

2.5m) of the boom hoist wire ropefound on the ground

• It was also found that the boom hoist wire rope was not of

the type that the manufacturerhad specified. The breaking strength of the wire rope was

also lower than what themanufacturer had specified.

• The crane operator did notknow how to read and interpretthe load capacity chart.


Evaluation of loss • Two workers killed

Type of contact • Struck by crane boom

Immediate cause(s) • Defective tools, equipment or materials

Basic cause(s) • Inadequate removal and replacement ofunsuitable items

• Inadequate maintenance

Failure of SMS • Maintenance regime

Root Cause Analysis

Recommendations

Ensure that the wire rope used is the type specified by manufacturer.

Conduct regular checks before lifting operations.

Continually train the crane operator on how to read and interpretthe load capacity chart.

Ensure that the lifting supervisor is present for all lifting operations.


CASE 13STRUCK BY A COLLAPSED WALL


Worker A and his co-worker wereworking in a trench at the worksite.They were laying and tighteningreinforced steel wires at thebottom of the trench.

The boundary wall of the adjacenthouse that was standing at theedge of the trench toppled intothe trench. Worker A was pinnedunder the collapsed wall.

1. The boundary wall was here beforeit toppled

2. The deceased was pinned here underthe wall

3. The trench

1. The deceased was pinned here under the wall


• The boundary wall that toppled measured about 15.5cm in thickness, 160cm in height and 1680cm in length. It was a brick wall with plaster on its surface.

• The trench where Worker A and his co-worker worked was dug parallel to this boundary wall.

• No support such as sheet piling,bracing, shoring, underpinning or other means to ensure the stability of the boundary wall beside the trench had been put up to prevent injury to workers working in the trench.

• Excavation of the trench had weakened the foundation of theboundary wall. As some of the earth below the cement slab onwhich the boundary wall was erected had fallen off into the

trench, the cement slab’s strength to support the boundary wall was reduced.

• The cement slab gave way and resulted in the wall toppling intothe trench.



Immediate cause(s) • Failure to secure

Basic cause(s) • Inadequate work standards

Failure of SMS • Hazard analysis and risk assessment

Root Cause Analysis


Recommendations

Provide supports such as sheet piling, bracing, shoring, underpinningor other means to ensure the stability of a boundary wall beside atrench to prevent injury to workers working in the trench.

Ensure that the integrity of the wall is checked regularly by acompetent person.

Follow-up

The occupier was instructed to erect supports according to thedesign of a professional engineer for structures adjoining anytrench to prevent injury to any person working in the trench.

Published in June 2008 by theWorkplace Safety and HealthCouncil in collaboration withthe Ministry of Manpower.

All rights reserved. Thispublication may not bereproduced or transmitted inany form or by any means,in whole or in part, without priorwritten permission. Theinformation provided in thispublication is accurate as at timeof printing. All cases shared in thispublication are meant for learningpurposes only. The learning pointsfor each case are not exhaustiveand should not be taken toencapsulate all the responsibilitiesand obligations of the user of thispublication under the law. TheWorkplace Safety and HealthCouncil does not accept anyliability or responsibility to anyparty for losses or damage arisingfrom following this publication.

Documents

by the WSH Construction Committee in collaboration with ... By Falling Objects.… · conduct a hazard analysis and develop a method statement for the outstanding reinstatement work