A MARINE repair and maintenance business has been fined £20,000 for breaking health and safety legislation after an 18-year-old apprentice suffered serious burns after he ignited a blowtorch, out of curiosity, while cleaning a boat using high-flammable fluid.
Morris Marine and Motors, represented by its owner Darryl Morris, was sentenced by the Royal Court yesterday having admitted its guilt at an earlier hearing. It was also ordered to pay £5,000 in court costs.
The Court heard that on 28 July 2023, at a boat park at La Collete, an 18-year-old apprentice marine engineer was tasked with cleaning out the bilge of a boat, which involved pumping out any water and then cleaning out ‘belt dust’ which can accumulate, using rags and brake cleaner.
The cleaner was extremely flammable and had vaporised into the air. Being “intrigued” by a blowtorch which had been left by a colleague nearby, the apprentice clicked the ignition switch, which caused the brake cleaner to catch fire.
He suffered serious burns to his hands and arms, as well as burn injuries to his face, eyebrows, lips and ears, which required two days in intensive care at the Hospital before he was flown to a specialist burns unit in Salisbury.
The court heard that he had been able to return to work six weeks later.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Inspectorate found that his employer had failed in its legal duty to protect its apprentice.
Crown Advocate Christina Hall said: “The immediate cause of the accident is apparent, the apprentice ignited the blowtorch which set fire to the brake cleaner vapours in the air, causing a fire which led to his burn injuries.
“He was a young and newly employed apprentice with no prior experience in marine engineering who was left unsupervised on a boat while handling brake cleaner, a highly flammable and toxic chemical.
“An ignition source was left in close proximity when he was unsupervised and handling brake cleaner. He was not trained, nor was he sufficiently informed about the dangers posed by the brake cleaner fluid, nor the dangers posed by the blowtorch.”
She added: “He had ADHD which causes him to make impulsive decisions. He stated that he had informed Mr Morris – the person responsible for the company’s health and safety compliance – and his supervisor of his diagnosis, and it appears that no consideration was given to the fact that this might heighten or alter the need for proper supervision and training.”
Other infractions Advocate Hall listed included a lack of written risk assessment of the bilge-cleaning activity; no formal training plan for the apprentice, he was not advised to wear eye protection or a mask, the cleaner was in a plastic bucket instead of a metal one, and while there was a company health and safety policy, it had no review date, and two people named as being responsible for health and safety had left the company.
Defending Morris Marine and Motors, Advocate Mark Boothman said that a significant cause of the accident had been the actions of the apprentice, who had picked up equipment that he was not required to use.
He said: “While it is accepted that businesses are required to protect their workers, in this case the actions of the apprentice were a substantial cause of harm. It is clear that he should not have used the ignition source.”
Advocate Boothman added that the apprentice had also been told not to smoke when using the brake cleaner, thus it was inherent that it was dangerous. The containers the fluid had been in were also marked flammable.
He said that Mr Morris had been unaware of the ADHD diagnosis before the accident.
The lawyer also pointed out that Mr Morris had rung the Health and Safety Inspectorate just 20 minutes after the incident.
“That is significant mitigation,” said Advocate Boothman. “An individual who self reports should receive additional credit because it incentivises others to do so.”
He added that the firm had subsequently employed a health and safety consultant on a two-year contract to update its policies, procedures and practises.
He continued: “Mr Morris has been knocked very hard by this incident, including having to take absence from work. It is clear that he has taken this personally; he has built this business from scratch and is devasted by this incident.”
