Man dies after drowning at work

It has been revealed that a man died in a serioushe was unable to save himself, when he fell into
work accident after drowning. The constructionthe water tank. In addition, he passed on his
worker was killed after falling into an undergroundsympathy to the worker’s family and pointed
water tank, in a job that should have taken threeout that a jury had been allocated because the
people, but was carried out by just him. Theman died in a work accident. In a cruel twist of
inquest jury ruled the employer to befate, the victim had only been working at his
professionally negligent for the cause of theemployer for one week. He was a driver of a
accident, which saw the 47-year-old drown totelescopic handler on the construction site in
death, and ruled that there were ‘defects inPortrush on the week of his death. He was hired
the system of working which contributed to theby the firm to build a waste treatment plant for
accident’. The nine-woman jury also ruled thatthe Water Service to help improve the water
the worker being a non-swimmer was relevant toquality at bathing beaches. The inquest heard
the circumstances of his death. They ruled thatno-one witnessed the worker fall into the well as
the victim, of Toberdoney Road in Dervock, nearhe was working alone, moving steel mesh which
Ballymoney, was “one man doing a three-manformed a temporary covering on top of the
job” and said there were “unclearsix-metre well, which was around half full with
instructions” regarding the work he waswater. The inquest was told it was a job which
involved in. The jury further ruled there wasshould have been carried out by three people
“inadequate supervision” on the site of a– one driving a telescopic handler and two
pumping station at West Bay, Portrush, on theothers to guide the mesh. Terrible work accident
day Mr Johnston died on October 6, 2006. SeniorNancy Henry, from the Health & Safety
Coroner John Leckey said it was already found byExecutive, said someone falling into the water in
a pathologist that the labourer died as a result ofthe tank may have had a chance of surviving if
drowning and he said that the jury had tothey had been able to swim as there was a
conclude whether or not there were any faults inladder in the tank. A lawyer representing the
the system of working, which lead to the incident.employer expressed his sympathy to the
He noted that as the victim could not swim, thisvictim’s family. Each year, approximately 200
could also have been a major factor as to whyworkers drown while at work.