large image
Over 6000 products
Loading...
Personal Protective Equipment Eye Protection

Work experience pupil’s injuries highlights the need for Personal Protective Equipment

Firm fined after failing to provide scarred work experience pupil with eye and face protection.

ChemPro Safety Goggles
From MSA

A 16 year-old pupil from Cannock Chase High School was scarred after being splashed in the eyes and face with a dangerous chemical in January, 2012.

Bret Thomas, from Cannock was on work experience at the time in a vehicle repair company when he was asked to help another employee refill a wheel stripping tank and dispose of the containers.

Despite the risks of carrying out such a task, Bret was not provided with eye or face protection, resulting in toxic paint stripper splashing into his eyes.

The injuries the pupil suffered included burns and scarring to his face, as well as vision sensitivity and migraines, which he will suffer from for the rest of his life.

It is a responsibility of employers to ensure that employees have the right protection to avoid health or safety issues at work.

There are a range of eye and face protection which the vehicle repair company could have provided workers with including safety goggles, chemical protective suits and also visors and face shields.

Frontline Safety offers a range of these products on their website from MSA and Drager. This includes ChemPro Safety Goggles from MSA which are designed to protect against liquids, chemical splash and coarse dust.

Alternatively, Frontline Safety also offer a propionate visor from MSA which can be attached to a safety helmet. The material of the visor also provides chemical splash resistance and is clear which is good for indoor or outdoor use.

Clear Molded Visor Propionate - Medium From MSA

Clear Molded Visor
Propionate - Medium
From MSA

Motorhouse 2000 Ltd of Cannock, were fined £4000 and were instructed to pay £6,319 in costs after pleading guilty to violating Regulation 19(2)(b) of the Management of Health and Safety of Work Regulations 1999 at a hearing on the 20th March, 2013.

HSE inspector Katherine Blunt pointed out that the substances which Bret had come into contact with included dichloromethane, hydrofluoric acid and methanol which cause burns to skin and could potentially cause death through inhalation.

"Motorhouse 2000 Ltd gave little consideration to the health and safety of its employees when working with chemicals by not ensuring protective equipment, including face and eye protection, was worn,” she said.

They failed to adequately assess the risks of the chemicals used which resulted in poor control measures being put in place for everyone working in that area.”

Personal protective equipment should be used with care and it is important that employees are trained to use the equipment correctly.

Related Posts
  1. MSA Altair 4X Gas Detector - What are the Features and Benefits?
  2. MSA S-Cap Escape Hood - What Are the Features & Benefits
  3. Introducing the MSA AirElite 4h - Features and Benefits
  4. Plumber sentencing highlights need for fixed gas monitors