Falls from above in maritime work: a nosological case ... · Giorgio Guastella4, Ezio Iacovini5,...

Falls from above in maritime work: a nosological case study and hypothesis for prevention measures

Navigation Edition 2013

Published with the support of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policiesby

INAILNavigation SectorIn collaboration with the Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports

ADMINISTRATION OFFICERMr. Agatino Cariola - INAIL Central Direction Risks

HEAD OF RESEARCHMr. Marco Starita - Technical Naval and Mechanical Firm Moroso Starita, Naples

AUTHORSFederica Cipolloni1, Francesco Correale2, Claudia Fabbro3, Teresa Filignano4, Giuseppe Gomisel3, Giorgio Guastella4, Ezio Iacovini5, Angelina Palopoli2, Silvana Pantalone4, Rosaria Pisanelli4,Silvia Salardi4, Fausta Savone5, Antonio Siciliano2, Maria Cristina Zuchi6

1 INAIL Statistical And Actuarial Advice Service 2 INAIL Navigation Sector, Naples Office3 INAIL Navigation Sector, Trieste Office4 INAIL Navigation Sector, Rome Head Office5 INAIL Navigation Sector, Rome Head Office6 Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports, DG Maritime Transports

CONTACTS

INAIL - General Direction Communication00144 Rome - P.le Giulio Pastore, 6e-mail: [email protected]

© 2013 INAILThis publication is distributed on a free basis and cannot be sold. Any reproduction with any means is not allowed. Quotations from this work are allowed as long as the attribution of the source is clearly stated.

ISBN 978-88-7484-381-7

Printed by INAIL’s Typography - Milan, june 2014

Summary

Foreword 5

Introduction 7

Aim and objectives of this Research 8

1. Scope of the analysis 8

1.1 INAIL data 9

1.2 The composition of the Italian Fleet according 13to the MIT data

2. Regulatory framework of reference 20

2.1 The sources of the regulations concerning safety and health 20of maritime work

2.2 A comparison between the Italian regulatory system concerning 21ship-specific safety and the Legislative Decree n. 81/2008

2.3 Risk evaluation and the regulations concerning the falls from height 23

2.4 An analysis of the legal framework with reference to the 30“Maritime Labour Convention” (MLC 2006)

3. The economic impact of insurance costs 32

3.1 Incidence and costs of the “Falls from height and slipping 34on the same level”

4. Statistical data on accidents aboard ships 36

4.1 Identification of the type of accident and classification 36

4.2 The data of the INAIL NAVIGATION Sector 374.2.1 Foreword 374.2.2 The general overview of the injury occurrence in the maritime 38

sector4.2.3 Slipping and stumbling with fall of the victim 49

4.3 INAIL data in relation to small-scale fishing 61

4.4 Data from MIT - Analysis of the accidents at sea caused by falls 65from above and on the same level 2005-2011

4.4.1 Foreword 654.4.2 Methodology 664.4.3 Analysis outcomes 67

4.4.3.1 Distribution for type of naval unit 684.4.3.2 Distribution for nature and part of the body injured 724.4.3.3 Analysis of the work environment and worker occupation 774.4.3.4 Analysis of severe and very severe accidents 90

4.5 Recurrent cases 924.5.1 Stumbling on structures and fall on the same level 934.5.2 Slipping or stumbling on stairways and ladders 94

and fall from height4.5.3 Slip and fall on the same level on wet or oily floor 944.5.4 Fall overboard while acceding or descending from the ship 944.5.5 Fall overboard from small pleasure boat 95

4.6 Analysis of the data harmonised with reference to real cases 95(appropriately made anonymous)4.6.1 Fall in the engine room 954.6.2 Fall overboard 964.6.3 Fall in the galley 964.6.4 fall overboard on a pleasure craft 97

5. Final analysis and proposals 97

5.1 An analysis of the most severe cases and recurrent ones 98with an identification of possible causes

5.2 A comparison between the trend of accidents recorded over 99the years and the effects of the entry into force of specific regulations

5.3 Some proposals aimed at reducing the accidents that are 100consequence of fall from above and on the same level also in the light of current laws at national and international level

Annex 110

The variables and their harmonization 110

Legal references and bibliography 116

5

Foreword

The Institution has embraced the functions of the former Welfare Institution forMaritime Sector (IPSEMA) and inherited its ongoing projects, such as the one thatoriginated this publication; inflating these projects and the research with a newenergy.

This book proposes an interdisciplinary approach aimed to give a better assessmentof the causes and consequences of fall, in particular from above, of which shipboardworkers are often victims.

This research has integrated the INAIL data with those from the Ministry of Transports;providing in this way a better standpoint on the injuries due to fall and allowing for acomparison of the statistical experience of the Institute with that of an institutional bodythat observes the same phenomena but from a different point of view and with adifferent purpose.

The work consists of different chapters dealing with different aspects. First of all, alegal framework is defined in which the issue of health and safety of shipboardoccupations, in general, and the issue of the fall from above, in particular, find theirplace. Secondly, the sector, the number and the features of the fleet and the peopleworking in it are described. Thirdly, the data on shipboard accidents are deeplyscrutinized, in particular their mode, severity and number of injuries aboard ships, alsoincluding some concrete examples of real accidents, drawn from the investigationscarried out by Harbourmasters’ Offices. In the concluding part, the working group putforward some proposals in the light of the study elaborated, and some practicaladvices, suggestions and recommendations are offered with the purpose ofimproving work organization and reduce the accidents due to falls

Introduction

This research concerns an injury-related phenomenon on which it is necessary tointervene in reason of, as we will show in the following chapters, the falls from heightand those caused by slipping and sliding represent over the fifty per cent of acci-dents occurring on ships, with the consequence of raising the deriving costs both interms of benefits paid out by the INAIL and by the National Healthcare Service as wellas in terms of biological damage undergone by maritime workers.In particular, the Research benefited of the contribution of the personnel employed inthe INAIL and the personnel within the General Direction for Maritime Transport andinland waterways of the Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport (MIT) which haveextrapolated from their Databases, as we show in the following pages, the data rela-ted to the injuries that are consequence of falls from above and of sliding and slip-ping onboard ships and vessels. In this way, it was possible to identify the recurrentcases and those with more severe consequences and to go back, whenever possi-ble, to the causes to propose suggestions to eliminate, or in any case reduce, inju-ries in such a complex environment as that of the ship. In fact, the ship is a work environment in which some potential hazards are presentfor the health and safety of embarked workers, both for its building-related elementsand for operating and management issues. In first place, from a structural point of view, the ship is characterized by the presen-ce of elements such as, for example, coamings, frames, floor plates, girders, etc.whose conformation is a direct cause of possible hazard of stumbling and/or bum-ping for people working on a ship. In regard to that, warning and signalling panels ofobstacles and/or sudden changes of level are normally provided for in the guidelineson safety on the onboard workplace.From an operation point of view, the onboard personnel also use ladders with highslopes both for internal passageways between the decks, and externally to reachinterlocking limits. In fact, in addition to regular walking the use of rope ladders is alsoneeded for climbing and disembarkation from heavy lift derricks from masts on whichnormally repeaters of electronic and navigation equipments are positioned. Clearly, the use of such ladders, especially when major slopes are involved, entailsa hazard for the worker. In relation to this, it is sufficient to imagine that a bulk shipmay also have external ladders connecting decks with slope gradients comparableto high rise buildings.The danger of falling from above is even higher each time the ship is working in adver-se weather conditions which may contribute to make the work environment more slip-ping and unstable. Work tasks in these cases are often carried out in conditions of poorvisibility and strong wind. Moreover, the maritime worker may find himself to work insituations in which body reflexes and steadiness are reduced because he has justwoken up or because he is overwhelmed by tiredness at the end of a working day.

7

In this general context, therefore, the statistics on injuries show that the case in que-stion “falls from above”, added to the typologies of “falls from ladders” and “falls onthe same level” (stressed by frequent cases of sliding and slipping) represent themajority of injury phenomenology in the maritime context.

Aim and objectives of this Research

Taking into account what we have just described above, it appears of major impor-tance to study and analyze in deep the causes of falls from above, so as to be ableto identify any further devices aimed at implementing the conditions to improvesafety and health protection of maritime workers and, therefore, limiting or reducingaccidents, also by means of innovations concerning designing, building or mainte-nance techniques of ships, and put forward some proposals for a working organiza-tion which might be more sensitive to prevention and risk-management issues. All this should have the purpose of promoting a positive perception in the implemen-tation of safety measures and protection of health at the workplace, so as to fosterthe diffusion among the people working in the maritime sector of a prevention cultu-re which could be a reference point for those Countries that recently entered theEuropean Union and those on the Mediterranean Sea.

1. Scope of the analysis

The sample of data used in this Research was drawn from the databases of, respec-tively, INAIL Navigation Sector, with data updated to June 2012, and the DGSeagoing and Shipping transports and Inland Waterways of the Ministry ofInfrastructures and Transport (MIT) which, as we will show in the following para-graphs, feature some differences because they have been collected and classifiedin a different way. In fact, the INAIL data are recorded in relation to reports related toaccidents undergone by insured maritime workers, while the MIT data regard the“accidents investigation forms” submitted by maritime Authorities according to theArticle 26 of the Legislative Decree n. 271 of 27 July 1999. Sometimes, when theappropriate information from the above mentioned accident forms are lacking, otherinformation deriving from the outcomes of the Summary and Formal Investigationscarried out by Harbourmaster’s Offices were collected, according to the article 55 ofthe Decree of the President of the Republic 1164/1965 in case of accidents with con-sequences of work disability above 30 days that, in fewer cases, regard both themaritime workers and the passengers involved. With the purpose of making the statistical data from the two databases comparable,we proceeded to carry out the extrapolation, wherever possible, with the same clas-sification, so as to allow for at least a qualitative analysis which evidences that thedata are generally homogeneous.


8

Data from the MIT were useful to identify the number and consistency of ships for-ming the Italian Fleet, divided into types of Shipping.

1.1 INAIL data

The INAIL - Navigation Sector manages the statutory insurance against labour acci-dents and occupational diseases provided for in the D.P.R. n. 1124/1965 and subse-quent modifications and integrations, for workers employed in maritime navigationand seawater fishing, without prejudice for the provisions of special laws. TheInstitute also provides for the collection, from the above mentioned workers andemployees of navigation companies offices, of sickness and maternity contributions,according to the Article 1, last paragraph of Legislative Decree n. 663/1979 conver-ted into Law n. 33/80, and pays out the relative economic benefits. For the crewsemployed in the civil aviation, the Institute only provides for the collection of mater-nity contributions. Moreover, for statutorily insured people, the INAIL - NavigationSector provides for the insurance of supplementary benefits in case of labour acci-dents and diseases, as provided for in laws, collective agreements, statutory agree-ments or signing-on conventions and integration benefits laid down in laws, regula-tions or national bargaining agreements. Crew members aboard sea-going ships of any tonnage and engine propelled, goingto sea even for pleasure purposes, as well as crafts and floating boats of any kindfor sea-port service supply must be covered with the insurance against occupationalaccidents and diseases. Also crew members aboard sea-going fishing vessels areincluded in this group.The insurance against occupational accidents and diseases includes the ship crew,considering as such all those employees regularly registered on the crew register orin any case embarked for ship service. For ships without crew register, the compo-nents of the crew are considered those people registered on the navigation licenseand all those registered in the muster book as laid down in the law, or anywayembarked for shipping service (as, in particular, employees of the so called onboardassignees - companies authorized by the Maritime Authority - having a contract ofprovision of any services on ships).With an exclusion for the statutory insurance against involuntary unemployment, alsothe freighter and the ship-owner are subject to the obligation of paying the contribu-tions, as laid down in the articles 265 and 272 of the Code of Navigation, which arepart of the crew in ships owned by them. The institute may also take charge of, upon ship owner’s request, the insuranceagainst labour accidents and occupational diseases of the crews of third-countryships. In such a case, the insurance includes the same benefits provided for mariti-me workers of Italian ships except that its validity is subject, in any time, to the shipowner’s regular payment of contributions.The overall premium of INAIL Navigation Sector is divided in function of specific cate-


9

gories of ships. However, some activities (with very few numbers in the current portfo-lio) have been taken into consideration as insurance branches of their own (boardconcessionaries, personnel with sea trial tasks, technicians and inspectors, nauticalpupils, services contracted aboard). In consideration of that, these are activities to beperformed aboard and, therefore, subject to navigation risks but not connected tothe specific tasks of the personnel embarked, that is the sea-going personnel; thesetasks shall be intended as the whole technical human activities carried out for theconduction of the nautical means. Therefore, the specific activities have been diffe-rentiated with the purpose of monitoring the incidence of risk.The shipping types are thus classified according to the following categories:1) Passengers, including cruise ships registered with major vessels numbers, provi-

ded with a muster book, with characteristics, allocations and accommodationsreserved to the crew and able to deep sea going and employed in activities oftransport, especially of people.

2) Cargo, includes sea-going ships registered as major ships, provided with a musterbook, with features, equipments and accommodations reserved for the crew andable to deep sea going and employed in activity of transport, especially goods.

3) Auxiliary sea-going ships are those ships devoted to carry out auxiliary functionsand reserved to deliver services related to sea-going navigation. The kind of navalunits in this category is differentiated and includes: pontoons, cockle boats, bar-ges, dredgers, pilot boats and floats. Auxiliary activities include, in addition togeneral maritime and port services and works, anti-pollution activities, platformsiding, scientific research, storage and bunkering.

4) Tug and towing boats and vessels include technical means reserved to draggingservices; in reference to the insurance coverage there is a distinction betweenport trailer (trailer-maneuver) and deep sea towing (towing transport).

5) Local traffic include the ships registered in the registers of minor vessels providedwith a license or ships registered with the number of major vessels with sea-goinglimitations included in the muster book, which can be employed in activities oftransport of people or goods, or both.

6) Pleasure crafts, include any propelled boats and ships reserved to recreationalnavigation, carried out in sea waters for sporting or pleasure purposes, with thecrew embarked with a signing-on contract.

7) The category of sea fishing includes coastal fishing, Mediterranean fishing andfishing beyond straits. The Italian legislation on fishing provides, from an insuran-ce point of view, the distinction between the part related to the sea going activi-ties, and the other which regards inland fishing and the complementary activitiesof culture in lagoon farming, oyster-farming, mussel farming.

8) Other branches include the insurance covering board concessionaries (movingpersonnel who carries out auxiliary services aboard ships, for example businessor recreational activities aboard cruise ships), the personnel reserved to sea trials(personnel used in building sites for the verification of ships), technicians and stu-dents in professional schools.


10


11

Table 1.0.1 - Distribution of boats and ships insured in the year 2010 by ship category.

(1) Coastal fishing + Mediterranean Fishing + Over strait fishing(2) Pleasure crafts: this category includes ships and crafts with any propelled means reserved to recreational sea-

going activities for sport or pleasure, with an onboard crew hired on a signing-on contract basis(3) Passenger + Board concessionaries + Pleasure crafts on rental registered in the “International Register” (4) Ship testing crew, technicians and inspectors (these are professional categories and not ship types)

Ship category Ships / Boats / vessels

Fishing vessel (1) 3.260 (48,0%)of which on the coast 3.100 (45,7%)

Pleasure (2) 1.341 (19,8%)

Cargo 628 (9,3%)

Auxiliary sea-going ships 470 (6,9%)

Local traffic 394 (5,8%)

Passenger (3) 330 (4,9%)

Tugboats 312 (4,6%)

Other (4) 50 (0,7%)

Totae 6.785 (100%)

In 2010, the INAIL, Navigation Sector, covered the crews of approximately 6,800ships, against occupational accidents and diseases, and recorded a slight increasein the insured units as compared to 2009 (+ 1.2%).The slight increase in the number of insured people also included an increase in thecontributions assessed equal to 2% and got to over 83 million Euros. Such a contri-bution amount has been used to cover both insurance expenditure deriving fromoccupational accidents and diseases and to grant other benefits provided for by theInstitute.Among the different categories of insured ships, the Fishing Units account for thehighest number, representing the 48%, with the Pleasure units representing the19.8% of the ships/boats insured by Inail.

From the data included in the table above, it is possible to observe that almost halfof the insured units is engaged in the so called “coastal fishing” (45.7%), that is thefishing activity that is mostly performed along the Italian continental and island coa-sts at a distance below twenty miles.

When we analyze the distribution of the onboard personnel insured in relation to thetypology of craft, it is noted that almost two thirds of those exposed to risk are con-centrated in the categories of “Passenger”, which includes cruise ships registered inthe major vessels registration numbers, with muster book, features, equipments andaccommodations allowing them to deep sea-going and employed in transport acti-vities (mainly of people) and of “Fishing”, the latter as a category including profes-sional fishing crafts, with activities performed by maritime fishermen and fishing com-panies, registered in the registers of the Harbourmasters’ Offices.


12

Figure 1.0.1 - Distribution of ships/crafts insured in the year 2010 by ship category .

Table 1.0.2 - Distribution of employees / year for craft category - year 2010.

Ship types (categories) Employees/year

Passenger (3) 10.633 (33,2%)

Fishing (1) 9.468 (29,6%)

Cargo 5.871 (18,3%)

Tug 1.965 (6,1%)

Auxiliary sea-going ships 1.593 (5,0%)

Recreational (2) 1.417 (4,4%)

Local traffic 1.002 (3,1%)

Other (4) 67 (0,2%)

Total 32.016 (100%)

(1) Coastal fishing + Mediterranean Fishing + Over strait fishing(2) Pleasure crafts: this category includes ships and crafts with any propelled means reserved to recreational sea-

going activities for sport or pleasure, with an onboard crew hired on a signing-on contract basis(3) Passenger + Board concessionaries + Pleasure crafts on rental registered in the “International Register” (4) Ship testing crew, technicians and inspectors (these are professional categories and not ship types)

Fishhingg Pleeasuure Cargo Auuxiliaship

aryp s

Loship

ocalpping

Passsenngerr TTugtow

g andwing

dg

OOtheer


13

Figure 1.0.2 - Percentage distribution of workers/year for ship type - year 2010.

Fishin

33

ng

,2

Plebeasuboat

29

urets

,6

Cargo

18,

o

,3

Auxsxiliahips

6,

arys

1

Loshi

ocappi

5

lng

PPasseng

4,4

gers

4

s Tugtow

g anwin

3,1

ndng

1

Otther

0,2

r

2

It is highlighted that the people exposed to risk are intended as the employees peryear, whose number includes the workers employed in the maritime sector for theentire year, or the number of workers estimated on the basis of the overall number ofworkdays employed for each ship in 2010 by every seamen of the crew, insured bythe Inail, Navigation Sector.

1.2 The composition of the italian fleet according to the MIT data

With the purpose of statistical analysis, the MIT receives the information regardingthe composition of the fleets of different types of naval units from sources distingui-shed according to the nature of the service provided. The information related to thecomposition of the fleet of merchant units, such as cargo units and passenger tran-sport units (ro-pax), the auxiliary units, as well as the information related to the com-position of recreational and pleasure crafts, come from the registers of the periphe-ral Offices of the Ministry. To this regard, it is stressed that merchant units with anoverall tonnage of more than 100 tsl are recorded, and that the high number of unitswith a width equal or above 10 metres are not included in the composition of plea-sure units, such as the Pleasure boats, for which there is an obligation of registrationaccording to the applicable regulations. The information related to the fishing unitsare, on the contrary, extrapolated from the Eurostat site, to which the GeneralDirection for maritime fishing and aquaculture of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food andForestry Policies sends its information.

The data related to the composition both of accidents and injuries, for every shiptype, come from the accident forms provided for in the Article 26 of the LegislativeDecree of 27 July 1999, n. 271 and from the outcomes of the investigations carriedout by the Peripheral Offices of the MIT. From the data collected in some international studies it results that the ItalianMerchant Fleet is the first one in the European Union for number of units, and ele-venth in the world for tonnage. Until 2007, it was the second merchant fleet of theEuropean Union; in the following years (2008-2009) it was the first fleet for number ofpassenger traffic, whilst it is at the third place for volume of transport of goods. The tables and the figures below have been processed using the information and thedata extrapolated from the National Accounts of Infrastructures and Transports forthe years 2006-2011, for the data related to merchant and pleasure ships, and fromthe Eurostat databank for the information on the Italian fishing fleet and the data ofthe European merchant craft. The composition of the Italian merchant fleet of gross tonnage above 100 tons andthe fishing fleet in the period 2005-2010 is the following:


14

1 International Shipping Facts and Figures - Information Resources on Trade, Safety, Security, Environment, IMOMaritime Knowledge Centre, 2012, data from IHS Fairplay “World Fleet Statistics 2010” (information updated to 31december 2010).

2 Energy, transport and environment indicators, Eurostat Pocketbooks, 2011.

Table 1.1.1 - Composition of the Merchant Fleet, metal-hull vessels, gross tonnage above 100 tonsYears 2005-2010.

Type of ship 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ship for the transport of passengers 375 383 395 377 376 377and goods and passengers

Dry-bulk ships 261 287 286 295 316 347

Liquid-bulk ships 291 297 293 315 329 339

Special ships 458 462 454 455 455 485

Total 1.385 1.429 1.428 1.442 1.476 1.548

Source: National Account of Infrastructures and Transports, based on data from MIT, Harbourmaster’s offices

Numero

As it may be observed from the tables and figures above, over the period 2005-2010the composition of the fleet of passenger transport and passenger-goods transportremained essentially unchanged, whilst the fleets related to other ship types presentsa slight increase trend over the same period. The distinction for age classes of the Italian merchant fleet as to 31 December 2010highlights a relevant share of old-age units, in particular for special and auxiliary ves-sels (in which the units aged more than 20 years represent 59.48% of the whole fleetin 2010) and for the passenger and passenger-goods transport units they are50.40%. Liquid bulk carriers result as the ship type which has been mostly renova-ted: in fact, it includes units aged less than 9 years, that is 56.93% and only 22.42%of liquid-bulk carriers are more than 20 years old.


15

Figure 1.1.1 - Composition of the Italian metal hull fleet, with gross tonnage above 100 tons - Years2005-2010.

0200400600800

1000120014001600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Special ships Liquid-bulk ships Dry-bulk ships Passengers / goods and passengers ships

Num

ber

Table 1.1.2 - Italian Merchant Fleet, metal hull, with gross tonnage above 100 tons, distinguishedaccording to age group and ship type, as to 31 December 2010.

Ship type Age group (years)

Total0 - 9 10 - 19 20 and beyond

Ship for the transport of passengers 105 82 190 377and of goods and passengers

Dry-bulk ships 149 58 140 347

Liquid-bulk ships 193 70 76 339

Special ships 107 91 287 485

Total Merchant ships 554 301 693 1548

Source: National Account of Infrastructures and Transports, based on data from MIT, Harbourmaster’s offices

Number

Unlike the merchant fleet, the fish catching fleet has shown a steady declining trendover the whole period taken into account in the study, and in 2010 showed a decrea-se in the number of units of approximately 6% as compared to the fleet observed in2005. This decline regards in particular the units long more than 24 metres, that in2010 show a smaller composition of more than 20% as compared to 2005 values.


16

Figure 1.1.2 - Italian Merchant Fleet, metal hull, with gross tonnage above 100 tons, subdividedaccording to age classes and ship type, as to 31 December 2010.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Ship for the transport ofpassengers and of goods

and passengers

Dry-bulk ships Liquid-bulk ships Special ships

Num

ber

Type of ship

0 - 9 10 - 19 20 and beyond

Table 1.1.3 - Composition of the Italian fish catching fleet, according to size - Years 2005-2010.

Length 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Less than 24 m 13.817 13.531 13.253 13.156 13.080 13.050

More than 24 m 584 562 527 527 507 465

Total 14.401 14.093 13.780 13.683 13.587 13.515

Processing of data from Eurostat source

Number

As we have observed before for other ship types, also for fish catching units fleetrenovation is weak; in particular, from 2006 to 2010 the share of ships aged less than10 years went from 12.02% to 10.45% whilst the share of ships aged equal or morethan 20 years has grown over the same period from 67.84% to 73.44%.


17

Figure 1.1.3 - Composition of the Italian fish catching fleet, size - Year 2010.

Table 1.1.4 - Composition of the Italian fish catching fleet, age - Years 2005-2010.

Age 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Less than 10 years 1.453 1.694 1.632 1.645 1.480 1.412

between 10 and 20 years 2.610 2.826 2.576 2.548 2.054 1.938

20 years and more 7.812 9.560 9.537 9.307 9.869 9.925

unknown 2.526 13 35 183 184 240

Total 14.401 14.093 13.780 13.683 13.587 13.515

Processing of data from Eurostat source

Number

24 m3,44%

24 m96,56%

below

above

In the table and the figure below the composition of pleasure crafts over the period2005-2010 is shown.


18

Figure 1.1.5 - Composition of the Italian fish catching fleet, age - Years 2005-2010.

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

unknown 20 years and more between 10 and 20 years Less than 10 years

Table 1.1.5 - Composition of the pleasure crafts registered in the peripheral Offices of the MIT andof the Harbourmaster’s Offices - Years 2005-2010.

Year Number of units

2004 90.624

2005 92.599

2006 95.530

2007 97.308

2008 100.227

2009 101.271

2010 102.041

Processing of the data reported in “Il Diporto Nautico in Italia” [water recreational sailing in Italy], years 2006-2010

It should be observed that only the pleasure craft units, considered without takinginto account the crafts of less than 10 metres length, not registered with theRegistration Numbers of competent Harbourmaster’s Offices, result, in terms ofnumber of units, about ten times higher than the number of merchant units.


19

Figure 1.1.6 - Composition of pleasure crafts registered in the peripheral Offices of the MIT andof the Harbourmaster’s Offices - Years 2005-2010.

Regissterred

Nberin

tho

ands

plea

Number in

thousan

ds

asure c

1

1

1

craft

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

ts2

90004

0.624 992.599 95.53002

97007

7.30708 1

20000.2

082277

20101

0091.2771

210

20102.0

0041

20062005

2. Regulatory framework of reference

2.1 The sources of the regulations concerning safety and health of maritimework

In Italy there is a special and independent body of rules regulating the maritime sec-tor. It is based on a system of independent rules implying the recourse to the ordi-nary law only in a completely subsidiary way; in our legal system this is the only lawwith such a feature. It is also a system of substantial common origin; in fact, in themaritime law, we can find rules which have been originating from maritime habits andcustoms connected to international business. Moreover, the rules and laws regula-ting this sector show a great uniformity that is, at the same time, a necessity requi-red also by the need to have a uniform regulations of the international conventionscurrently applied to the maritime sector.On the other hand, the issue of safety and health on the workplace has recently beenthe subject of a new regulation with the issuing of the legislative Decree of 9 April2008 n. 81 and subsequent modification (the so-called Consolidation Act of worksafety (Testo Unico)). The provisions contained in the above mentioned decree esta-blish the implementation of the Article 1 of Law n. 123 of 1 August 2007 and areaimed at implementing the adjustment and the reform of current laws concerninghealth and safety of workers in the workplaces, through the reorganization and thecoordination of these laws into a single regulatory text. The legislative Decree pur-sues such an objective in compliance with the relevant community rules and theinternational conventions.Just in consideration of the specificity of the Navigation Sector and aware that theapplication of technical provisions laid down in the Legislative Decree n. 81/2008,basically developed for the civil and industrial sectors, result as incompatible with thecurrent technical standard of functioning applied to some sectors, including the mari-time one, we proceed to give some explanation. In fact, the Article 3, paragraph 2, ofthe Legislative Decree n. 81/2008 laid down that “with decrees, to issue within fifty-five months from the date of entry into force of the above mentioned decree accor-ding to Article 17, paragraph 2 of Law n. 400 of 23 August 1988, upon proposal ofthe competent Ministers, in concert with the Minister of Labour and social policiesand the Minister of Health, after acquiring the opinion of the permanent Conferencefor relations with the State, the regions and the autonomous Provinces of Trento andBozen, it is ensured that the necessary provisions are laid down to allow for the coor-dination of regulations on occupational health and safety applicable to land-basedactivities with the regulation concerning the working activities aboard ships, as refer-red to the legislative decree n. 271 of 27 July 1999; port working activities, as refer-red in legislative decree n. 272 of 27 July 1999 and the activities related to fish cat-ching ships, as referred to in the legislative decree n. 298 of 17 August 1999...”.The paragraph 3 of the same article clarifies that until the issuing of the above men-tioned decrees (article 3, paragraph 2) “[there is no] prejudice for the implementing


20

provisions of the article 1, paragraph 2 of legislative Decree n. 626 of 19 September1994, as well as the provisions referred to legislative decree n. 271 of 27 July 1999to legislative decree n. 272 of 27 July 1999, to legislative decree n. 298 of 17 August1999” which then represent the specific legislative body of reference, concerning theprotection of health and safety of maritime workers aboard merchant and fish cat-ching ships.Following the missed issuing of the implementing Regulation recalled by theLegislative Decree n. 271/1999, the Division 4 of the Maritime and Internal Security ofthe Ministry of Transport released the Letter n. 09/SM of 28 November 2006 in whichit established, on the basis of what provided for in the “Directives on the preventionof accidents aboard of ships” issued by the ILO as well as by the information letterMCS-MEPC.2/Circ.3 of 5 June 2006 - the guidelines to carry on the Risk evaluationaboard ships, including the indications to process the documents referred to lettersa) and b) of paragraph 1 of the Article 6 of the Legislative Decree n. 271/1999.Finally, it is stressed that the work activities concerning naval building sites, which insome cases involve naval crew members, are regulated by the Legislative decree n.272/1999 as far as Workers safety is concerned.

2.2 A comparison between the Italian regulatory system concerning ship-specific safety and the Legislative Decree n. 81/2008

As already explained, the currently applicable legislation for the protection of safetyand health aboard ships is essentially represented by the Legislative Decree n.271/1999 that has the purpose of:- Concerning work security, providing an insurance for the protection of health and

prevention of work accidents and occupational diseases;- Deciding the duties and the specific responsibilities of ship-owners, seafarers and

other operators concerned by the evaluation of risks;- Establishing, in relation to the hygiene of work, the criteria concerning hygiene and

fitness of crew accommodations. However, such a domain is, in particular, regula-ted, for the Italian flag, by Law n. 45 of 16 June 1939 (so called “Hygiene and habi-tability”).

The Article 5 of the Legislative decree n. 271/1999 establishes also that some gene-ral measures of protection be applied, including the following:- Evaluation of the situations of risk for safety and health, in relation to the working

activity performed aboard;- Elimination of the risks deriving from the use of substances that are dangerous for

workers’ health, by substituting these materials with others in compliance with theavailable technologies in naval designing and building or by reducing as far aspossible their use aboard;

- Reduction of risks at source;


21

In the articles 6 to 10, the obligations are addressed which the ship-owner, the com-mander, the seafarer, the designer and the ship builder and any providers must com-ply to. In particular, the article 6.1 requires that the ship-owner evaluate the risks, requiringthe technical staff of the naval construction to prepare a Security Plan of the workingenvironment, as referred to article 117 of the Navigation Code and to article 275 ofthe relevant implementation Regulation.The working environment security Plan, in particular shall be prepared including:- The detailed project of the units in which arrangements for the working environ-

ment are located;- The specific technique of the unit, including all the elements useful to the evalua-

tion of the hygiene and safety conditions aboard the ship;- The technical report on the evaluation of risks for the protection of health and

safety of maritime workers in connection with the performance of the working acti-vity aboard; in the report, the criteria adopted for the evaluation and the preven-tion and protection measures of workers are specified, as well as the implementa-tion plan of any actions aimed at improving the level of hygiene and safety aboard.

The article 25 of Legislative Decree n. 271/1999 also regulates the procedures toadopt in case of injury aboard. In particular, independently from the period in whichthe seafarer has been inactive and, therefore, from the entity of the injury - the ship-owner is required to report the accident to the maritime authority, the insurance insti-tute and the ASL of the compartment in which the ship is registered.The elements relevant to the injury are reported also in the Registry of accidents thatis kept aboard. In the Annex I to the Legislative Decree n. 271/1999 the factors of strain are descri-bed and classified according to the following four groups.1. Land and aboard management of the ship (work management and planning, pro-

cedures, etc.);2. Elements concerning the ship (automation level, equipment reliability, microclima-

te, vibrations, etc.) ;3. Elements concerning the crew (training, expertise, skills and competences. etc.);4. External environmental factors (weather, port, sea-lane bustle, etc.).

The legislative decree provides for the establishment of some specific roles apt topromote the activities of health and safety prevention and protection, such as theworkers Representative for safety; the prevention and protection service Supervisor;the people in charge of the prevention and protection service against risks; the com-petent doctor.In general, the legislative decree n. 271/1999 lays down almost integrally all the pro-cedures provided for in the legislative decree n. 626/1994 (now legislative decree81/2006 and subsequent integrations and modifications) and in particular the detailscontained in the annexes to the law text, being limited to define only the specific fea-


22

tures of the seafaring work, also because many requirements have been alreadyregulated by international and community rules.As any other employer, the ship-owner and the shipmaster are also required to informthe seafarers of the specific risks to which they are exposed during the performanceof regular working activities and to train them on the appropriate use of work equip-ments, tools and the personal protection devices in compliance with the provisionscontained in the Security Plan laid down on the basis of what provided for in the art.6.1 of legislative decree n. 271/1999 and the above mentioned Information letter n.09/SM of 28 November 2006 of the MIT.Moreover, the ship-owner shall provide for the training and exercising of the maritimeworkers concerning the hygiene and safety of the occupational environment aboard,preparing appropriate operation handbooks and require workers to comply with therules concerning hygiene and safety as well as the use of personal protection devi-ces at workers’ disposal.

2.3 Risk evaluation and the regulations concerning the falls from height

It is very important, for the study under examination, the legislative Decree n. 235 of 8July 2003 that implements the Directive 2001/45/CE concerning the minimum require-ments in terms of safety and health for the use of work equipments by workers and sub-sequently made part in the Heading II, Title IV of legislative Decree n. 81/2008 Article 105and following. This rule establishes the minimum requirements concerning safety andhealth for the use of work equipments during performance of occasional tasks at height;moreover, a definition is given of “working at height” as a working activity that exposesthe worker to the risk of falling from a height measured at more than 2 metres from a floor. Works at height may expose workers at particularly severe risks. In particular, we arereferring here to the risk of falling from height, following a presentation, at the Ministryof Labour, which raised a number of requests to explain and clarify the relevant rules;the Ministry released an Information letter n. 29 of 27 August 2010 that, as a question-answer model, defines in a clear way the actual scope of effectiveness of the relevantregulation and in particular of the provisions laid down in the Chapter II Title IV of legi-slative decree 81/2008.In particular, the regulation in question describes in detail the employer’s obligationsconcerning the use of equipments for the performance of works at height and esta-blishes that “the employer, in cases in which occasional tasks at height cannot becarried out in conditions of safety and in appropriate ergonomic conditions in a fittedplace, chooses the equipments most appropriate to guaranteeing and maintain safelabour conditions, in conformity with the following criteria:a) Collective protection measures should always take priority over personal protec-

tion measures. b) Working equipment size shall be suitable to the nature of works to be carried out,

to predictable strains and to a risk-free circulation.


23

Other obligations of the employer in case of works at height regard:• The choice of the most appropriate access way to temporary jobs at height in

relation to the frequency of circulation, difference in height and length of task;• The adopted system of access shall allow for the evacuation in case of imminent

danger;• The passage from an access system of platforms, scaffolding, boardwalks and

viceversa shall not entail further risks of falling;• The use of the rope ladder as a workstation at height only in the cases in which

the use of other equipments considered as safer is not justified due to the limitedlevel or risk and of the short length of time or, of the existing features of the pla-ces that cannot be modified;

• The employment of access and positioning systems through ropes to which theworker is directly supported, only in circumstances in which, following the riskevaluation, results that the task may be carried out in security and the employ-ment of another working equipment considered as safer is not justified due to thelimited level or risk and of the short length of time or, of the existing features of theplaces that cannot be modified;

• the identification of measures appropriate to minimize the risks connected to therelevant equipments, predicting, if necessary, the implementation of protectiondevices against falls. The above mentioned devices shall be shaped and resistantin such a way as to be able to avoid or to stop the falls from workstations at hei-ght and to prevent, as far as possible, any injuries to workers. The collective pro-tection devices against falls may have interruptions only in the points in whichrope ladders or ladders are employed.

Occasional works at height should be carried out only in case the weather conditionsdo jeopardise workers safety and health.In case of employment of scaffolding, the decree identifies the employer’s or ship-owner’s obligations: they are required to prepare, through a supervisor, a plan ofassembling, use and disassembling, in relation to the complexity of the chosenscaffolding. Such a plan may be a general implementation plan, integrated withinstructions and detailed designs for special schemes constituting the scaffoldingsystem; the plan shall be given to the supervisor in charge of surveillance and to anyconcerned workers. In August 2012 a new edition of the UNI EN 363:2008 rule “Personal equipment forthe protection against falls - Personal system for the protection against falls” waspublished. The document specifies the general features and the assembling of personal protec-tion systems against falls; it provides some examples of specific types of personaldevices for the protection against falls and describes the way the components maybe assembled into the systems.The same designing features of the ship, made of different places, often narrow, butoften connected to each other and interconnected by hundreds of tubes and electric


24

cables, the presence aboard, almost everywhere, of material or liquid fuels, ofteninflammable, require that anyone working aboard would not do it autonomously, buton the basis of a clear-cut work organization, appropriately studied to avoid that thework of a person in charge may interfere with the work of other people in charge, thusrepresenting a danger for the safety of people aboard the ship and for the ship as awhole.At the international and European level, attention is drawn on the specific activitiescarried out aboard ships and on the way the risks should be assessed and impro-ving actions conceived in order to eliminate and/or reduce the hazard.From a regulative point of view, the following regulations and guidelines published byinternational organisms and associations working in the maritime sector may be veryuseful.In 1993, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) with the Resolution A.741 (18)adopted on 4 November 1993, published the so-called ISM Code, that is theInternational Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for PollutionPrevention. In particular, the ISM Code, that is being applied to all of the ships subjected to theSOLAS, that is the ship of more than 500 GT, is aimed at ensuring safety at sea inorder to prevent damages or the loss of human lives, and also to avoid disasters withspecial reference to those that may affect the marine environment. The ISM Code establishes that such objectives should be met through the applica-tion of Ship Management System (SMS), to be implemented by a ManagementCompany that has to:- establish safety procedures during the ship management and to the working

environment;- define protection measures against risks;- constantly improve the Management system of the staff working at land and those

working aboard, preparing emergency management procedures related both tothe ship safety and to the environment’s protection.

Also in this case, as it may be deduced by the title that identifies the ISM Code, theIMO attention was focused on ship safety, moving, however, the point of view on thehuman contribution in ship management, which, if it is being carried out withoutapplying the relevant procedures, may entail a danger both to the ship and to theworkers aboard and the marine environment. The adoption of a Management System of ship safety has produced, therefore, aprocedure planning and an ongoing monitoring of many working activities aboardwith a consequent improvement of the labour conditions.Afterwards, with the Resolution MSC.273 (85) of 4 December 2008, entered into forceon 1 July 2010, the IMO modified the ISM Code, prescribing the preparation of a RiskAssessment that, in fact, becomes part of the procedures provided for by the Codeand by the Safety Management System (SMS).Following this, on 21 May 2010 the General Command of the Organism of


25

Harbourmaster’s Offices issued the General Series Circular letter n. 83 in which thenew procedures laid down in Resolution MSC.273 (85) for the ISM Code are speci-fied, as explained in the following points:1) Sect. 1.2.2 “assessing the risk regarding the ship, the crew members, the environ-

ment and establish appropriate countermeasures”.a) the risk assessment, according to law, might be developed according to the

ship type, integrating, if necessary, the assessment activity for equipmentsand/or specific operation of single units. The assessment, carried out also as“on site” activity and with the contribution of qualified personnel in the specificmaritime sector, should bring effectively to the identification of, at least, what isalready in use into existing handbooks “procedures and instructions” (general-ly referred to in Chapter 12).

b) It is also appropriate that a “standard procedure” of risk assessment be deve-loped, which may be applied in case it would result necessary to carry on anoperation / activity aboard that has not yet been assessed. The risk asses-sment, in such a circumstance, shall have to be developed by the Company,using the data provided by the ship command and in compliance with theabove mentioned “standard procedure”. Such activity of risk assessmentrequires to be appropriately documented. The accompanying documentsshall be available to auditors, upon request, when the audit is being performedin the company.

c) Concerning the part related to the personnel, it is deemed necessary to pro-ceed to another risk assessment, which reflects the new regulation, conside-ring as a complete legal tool what it has been laid down when applying theprovisions included in the Circular Letter 09/SM on 28 November 2006 by theMinistry of Transport, implementing the provisions laid down in the legislativeDecree n. 271/1999. The above references are applicable as far as the men-tioned risk assessment was submitted for approval according to the procedu-re laid down in the legislative Decree n. 271/1999 in force and in the CircularLetter 09/SM.

d) Moreover, the new compliance emerging from the handbook will reveal as indi-spensable only insofar as, upon assessment of the risks, it might be necessaryto bring some substantial modifications to the relevant chapter and the deri-ving procedures. What is laid down above is without prejudice for the evalua-tion carried out which shall be included in the handbook and in the updatedprocedures.

e) It should be remarked that, up to now, the IMO has not yet identified anymethodology to follow in the “risk assessment” process, thus letting singlecompanies to choose, at their discretion, the most appropriate techniques tothe situations to be assessed. Concerning the complete and updated riskassessment of the personnel, this one may be found in the documentationrequired according to the legislative Decree n. 271/1999 and subsequentmodifications. At the same time, if the company holds an ISO14001 certifica-


26

tion related to environmental protection issues, the SMS handbook may referto the documents of the environmental management system or to the asses-sments of the risks carried on by the Company managing oil cargo ships, inorder to meet the TMSA (Tanker Management and Self Assessment) require-ments.

2) 12.1 “The Company is required to carry out the internal and aboard assessmentsof its safety management system at intervals no longer than 12 months with thepurpose of assessing that the safety and prevention activities against pollution areperformed in conformity with the safety management system. In exceptional cir-cumstances, that period could be extended to three months further”.

a) The Company will proceed to assess the exceptional circumstances and itshall give evidence by means of the procedures provided for in the manage-ment system.

Circular Letter, General Series n. 83

The Circular Letter n. 83 of 21 May 2010 of the General Command of theHarbourmaster’s Offices, contains in annex - for the first time in Italy - an example ofRisk Scheme similar to the one adopted, for example, in the Oil Market. As a we have seen before, until the 1 of July 2010, the date in which the ResolutionMSC.273 (85), issued by the IMO on 4 December 2008, entered in force, at the inter-national level such a specific regulation did not exist requiring the preparation of theSafety Assessment and Evaluation of Risks; these procedures were generally requi-red in relevant national regulations, such as the legislative Decree n. 271/1999 in Italy,or by Ship management Companies or by specific requests of freighters.Anyway, in such a context, international organisms such as the InternationalAssociation of Classification Societies (IACS), which includes all major ranking orga-nisms following the construction and the classification of the ships published someGuidelines.Specifically, the IACS already issued in 2004 a Guide to Risk Assessment for shipsoperating on their own. The Guide was recently implemented and ratified by the IACSResolution n. 127 of June 2012.


27


28

As in the case of what provided for in the ISM Code and in the Circular of theHarbourmasters’ Offices in Italy, the IACS Resolution n. 127 lays down the purposesof the Risk Assessment summarizing the routine process of management accordingto the following flow scheme.

In this case too, the Risk Scheme is introduced. The Scheme is very similar to that iden-tified in the Circular Letter n. 83 of 21 May 2010 by the Command of Harbourmaster’sOffices.

It should be considered that the Risk Scheme, at the moment, is only an instrumentthat was studied to simplify the Risk Assessment in addition to make the interpreta-tion of risks easier for seafarers and people in charge.In particular, the current trend at the international level, as also set out in the IACS


29

Resolution n. 127, is that of assessing the Risk Scheme in a more flexible way.It is therefore introduced the principle according to which the risk should be reducedat a level which is “as low as is reasonably practicable”. Such an approach is called ALARP, from the English acronym “as low as is reasona-bly practicable”; its principles are summarized in the so-called “ALARP triangle”.

To sum up, at the international level there is currently a shift from the approach of Riskassessment to that of Risk management.In such a context, the Member States were required to adopt any necessary measu-res to carry out the ship inspections, in particular providing the competent authoritieswith qualified inspectors (Port Sate Control Inspector - PSC).Inspections are, therefore, classified according to two priority categories: priorityships I for which the inspection is mandatory and priority ships II for which the inspec-tion is optional.It should be observed that the risk outlook attributed to a ship in stopover or mooringin a port is determined considering such parameters as age and type of ship, State,compliance with the regulations by the company or, also, number of anomalies orrecent “stops”. Competent authorities assess that any shortcomings observed orrevealed during inspection are rectified according to the relevant conventions. Incase of shortcomings representing an apparent hazard for safety, health or environ-ment, the competent authority of the Port State shall assess that the ship is incustody or that its operation is blocked. Of course, the owner or the ship-owner, orhis representative in the Member State is entitled to appeal against the decision ofthe competent authority.

2.4 An analysis of the legal framework with reference to the “MaritimeLabour Convention” (MLC 2006)

In the international domain, the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 (MLC 2006)adopted on 23 February 2006 in Geneva is a very important instrument concerningsafety and health of maritime workers. It is actually the final stage of a long processof integration of more than 65 conventions and recommendations of the InternationalLabour Organization (ILO) adopted in the last 80 years, regarding maritime workers.With the ratification by the Government of Philippines on 20 August 2012 and thesubsequent signature by thirty subscribers, a procedure to bring the entry into forceof the MLC 2006 due on 20 August 2013 has started. In this way there will be a sin-gle text including all of the updated rules laid down in the current international con-ventions and recommendations concerning maritime work; this text resumes thebasic principles contained in the other international convention concerning work ingeneral.It is necessary to recall that maritime transport of any kind and mode is a globalizedactivity, in the widest sense of this term. In fact, not only the ship is able to move freelyand, thus, get to any country of the world, but it may also sail under different flagsand may take on board crew members of different nationalities. In particular, a shipmay address to a very wide labour market both in relation to the circulation and allo-cation of capitals and in the distribution and acquisition of work.For this reason, for safety reasons as well as for commercial and social dumpingunder the auspices of some UN agencies, some international rules have beenissued, which regulates any aspects of maritime transport including the ship con-struction and any criteria applying to the work environment. To the three pillars already in force, that are MARPOL (rules against pollution)3,SOLAS (safety and construction criteria)4 and STCW (training and professional sta-tus)5, there is today another pillar: the MLC 2006 (contract, labour, habitability andwelfare conditions).


30

3 Such convention sets out the minimum feature of mineral oils retention equipments present aboard in addition to thefixed and mobile safety systems to avoid spreading into the sea.

4 It sets up the safety criteria that all of the passenger ships and cargo ships with more than a 500 tons of tonnagemust comply with. Moreover, it sets up the construction criteria of the following ship elements: structure, subdivisionand stability, machines, electrical and fire-fighting equipments, rescue means and accommodation, radio communi-cation. Sea-going safety. Bulk transport. Dangerous goods transport. Nuclear ships. Safety management of ships(ISM Code. SMS). Safety measure for fast crafts. Special measures to improve safety at sea. Additional safety mea-sures for bulk carriers. Fire-fighter construction.

5 The acronym STCW stands for the International Convention on Standard of Training, Certification and Watch keep-ing for Seafarers. The Convention sets out the specializations and the certificates which crew members should pos-sess in relation to the specific tasks (deck, machinery, radio equipments, etc.). Moreover, there are clearly indicated,for any specific function, the following four parameters: specific competences; theoretical knowledge and requiredexpertise; competence assessment methods; criteria of specific competences evaluation. In the code, on the con-trary, the specific exercises and procedures required to obtain relevant professional qualifications are described andtherefore identified.

The latest Convention shall constitute at short, the term of reference that all the natio-nal regulation structure concerning maritime labour, including health protection andworkers safety aboard ships shall take into account.The entry into force of the Convention shall, in fact, produce a set of certain anduniform rules at the international level, so as to determine the technical standardsof work security aboard and to reduce of the differences in basic conditions ofsafety. The MLC Convention 2006 regroups and regulates a set of complex issues (from thework time aboard, to security and health at work, to placement organization, etc.)that require an in-depth work of adjustment of national regulation to these new provisions.In the Article II, paragraph 4 of MLC 2006 it is clearly specified that “Except asexpressly provided otherwise, this Convention applies to all ships, whether publiclyor privately owned, ordinarily employed in commercial activities, other than shipsengaged in fishing or in similar pursuits and ships of traditional build such as dhowsand junks. This Convention shall not apply to warships or naval auxiliaries.”The Convention includes three distinguished but connected parts, that is the Articles,the Regulations and the Code. The Articles and the Regulations lay down the funda-mental rights and principles as well as the basic obligations of the Member Stateswhich ratified the Convention.The Code, on the contrary, sets out how the rules shall be applied and includes a partA (mandatory rules) and a part B (non mandatory Guidelines).From a deeper analysis of title IV of MLC 2006 and a comparison with what has beenreferred in the legislative decree n. 271/1999, in the legislative decree 298/1999 andin the Law n. 45 of 16 June 1939 (so called “Hygiene and habitability”) it has to benoted how our regulatory system already addresses a good part of international gui-delines, even if it is still necessary to recall that the coordination between the con-tents of the above mentioned decrees and the legislative Decree n. 81/08 make thiscorrespondence even higher.As regards the international regulations referred specifically to the fish catching sec-tor, we are still waiting for the ratification of the Convention n. 188 “Labour in the fishcatching sector” of the International Organization of Labour, adopted on 14 June2007 by 96th session of the International Labour Conference because, as said befo-re, the MLC 2006 excluded the fishing sector from its domain of application. The Convention 188 specifically reviews and updates the Conventions n. 112 of 1959on the minimum age of fishermen; n. 113 of 1959 on the medical inspection of fisher-men; n. 114 of 1959 concerning the employment contract of fishermen and n. 126 of1966, concerning the accommodations of crew members on fish catching ships. Inthe Convention other important issues are also addressed, such as health and safetyon the workplace, crew member composition and time off, crew members list, returnrules, employment and accommodation, social security, compliance with and imple-mentation of MLC 2006.


31

3. The economic impact of insurance costs

The people protected in the navigation sector, that is crew members of ships whocarry out a remunerated employment for an employer, are entitled, in case of acci-dent, to claim a benefit in relation to injury consequences.The occupational accident is an event that is covered by an insurance protectionaccording to a principle of “automaticity” of deriving benefits. The Consolidation Actconcerning occupational accidents and diseases (Decree of the President of theRepublic n. 1124/1965) does not provide for a legal definition of occupational acci-dent but includes the elements that should be present for an accident being consi-dered as a consequence of the occupational risk:a) The injury, that is the physical or psychic impairment - the death or a permanent

inability, or an absolute temporary disablement entailing an absence from work formore than three days.

b) A violent cause, that is an external fact that in sudden contact with the worker’sbody, provokes the injury. Substantially, the cause should be apt to provoke theimpairment.

c) The relation between work and accident should not be causal but occasional.

Whenever as a consequence of an accident, the doctor decides for the disembarka-tion of an insured worker, the Institute is required to pay a daily allowance equal to75% of the remuneration received in the preceding thirty days from the date of disem-barkation, reported on the muster book or on the license.The allowance is paid from the day after the disembarkation date and it is paid forthe whole period of absolute disability which prevent the injured worker to attendhis/her occupation in whole or in part.On the basis of the principle laid down in Article 32 of the Constitution, which ack-nowledges and protects the right to health not only as a collective interest, but also,and above all, as a fundamental right of the person; and in the reiterated invitationsof the Constitutional Court, the law maker provided for, within the scope of the insu-rance against occupational accidents and diseases, an appropriate coverage andindemnity assessment of the “biological damage”. In the view of compensating thedamage to the person as such, independently from any pecuniary consequences,with the issue of the legislative Decree n. 38/2000 and subsequent modifications, theINAIL is in charge of the compensation - in case of occupational accidents occurredand the occupational diseases reported - of any impairments deriving from injuriesto the psycho-physical integrity, with a new economic benefit.For the injuries occurred or the occupational diseases appeared from 25 of July2000, the above mentioned legislative decree n. 38/2000 establishes the following:a) Compensation in capital of the biological damage only according to the degrees

of disablement equal or above 6% and below 16%.b) Annuity compensation for degrees of impairment equal or above 16%, of which a


32

part for biological damage and one for economic damage, determined accordingthe worker’s retribution level and qualification.

In case of fatal event, an annuity will be granted to survivors who were dependent onthe worker victim of injury; the annuity is 50% of the insured worker’s yearly remune-ration for the spouse and 20% for each child until 100%.In carrying out the economic assessment of the insurance costs deriving from theallowances paid out in case of temporary inabilities, we chose to refer to the injuriesoccurred in 2009; to allow a stabilization of the data with the purpose of following theadministrative and medical procedure leading to the closure of a case, and in orderto use the information to complete the in-depth analysis of “falls from height” and“slipping on the same level” to which a reference is contained in the paragraph 4.2.3for the same year.In particular, the 1,300 accidents occurred to maritime workers in 2009 lead to a totalamount paid out in relation to temporary inability of more than 11 millions of Euros,an amount that, even if it recorded a decreasing trend of 5.1% as compared to 2008,is anyway rather consistent. Such an amount is a result imputable to accidentsoccurred in the workplace (98.1%), i.e. those accidents that occurred in carrying outoccupational activities or tasks and representing almost the total of all the injuriesrecorded (97.8%).

The total amount paid off, in relation to the total amount of accidents reported, ser-ved to pay a number of absences from work due to injury almost equal to 137,000,the 98.1% of which due to accidents on the workplace. In reference to this, it isnecessary to point out that the costs on which the analysis is focused only regard theones that the INAIL took in charge and do not take into account the costs sustainedby the National Health Service and by society in general.


33

Table 3.0.1 - Distribution of the accidents according to the event type, number of workdays andamount paid off - Year 2009.

Accident type Number of accidents Paid workdays Paid off amounts €

In the workplace 1.271 (97,8%) 134.300 (98,1%) 11.095.855 (98,1%)

Commuting6 29 (2,2%) 2.629 (1,9%) 214.901 (1,9%)

Total accidents 1.300 (100%) 136.929 (100%) 11.310.756 (100%)

6 Commuting accidents, according to the Article 6 of the Decree of the President of the Republic n. 1124/1965, areintended the accident occurring during the travel to embark onboard ships in which crew members either are on ser-vice or they shall be returned in case the layoff from the book occurred for any reasons in a different place from whichthe person was embarked or from the place where the person concerned was when the call to embarkation arrived,as long as in the outward journey or on the way back they do not change their route for any reason.

3.1 Incidence and costs of the “Falls from height and slipping on the same level”

When we analysed only the accidents occurred in the workplace, that is the only caseson which it is possible to intervene with prevention measures, and we focused the atten-tion only on the falls from height and on slips on the same level, being the subject of thisresearch, we referred to the “deviation” that is a variable that according to the ESAWcodification describes the event that, diverting from the norm, led to the injury.On the basis of the information contained in such a variable, it is in fact possible toassess the share of payment attributable to cases due to slip or stumble with falls on thesame level or from height. This share, as shown in the table below, results as the mostconsistent (59.2% of the whole amount paid off) with a more than 6.5 million Euros paidoff, corresponding to approximately 78,000 paid off workday.


34

Figure 3.0.1 - Distribution of the accidents according to the type of event, number of workdaysand amount paid off - Year 2009.

In thee woorkpplace

OOn tthe way

Table 3.1.1 - Distribution of the accidents occurred in the workplace according to number, workdaysand paid off amounts, divided for the deviation - Year 2009.

DeviationNumber of Paid off Paid offaccidents workdays amounts

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of the person 645 77.936 6.568.078(50,7%) (58%) (59,2%)

Other deviation507 44.603 3.652.990

(39,9%) (33,2%) (32,9%)

No information, undetermined or not present in 119 11.761 874.787the explanation (9,4%) (8,8%) (7,9%)

Total 1.271 134.300 11.095.855(100%) (100%) (100%)

7 E.S.A.W. (European Statistics on Accidents at Work) is the codification system established at European level, which wasadopted by the INAIL from January 2001. Initially, it pointed to standardize the classification of the accidents so as tomake comparable the statistics processed by Member States and that, subsequently, was focused to describe theinjury occurrence dynamics, highlighting the causes and the circumstances.

Nu

2

umb

2,20

ber o

0%

of a

97,8

ccid

80%

dent

%

ts Paaid w

1,9

wor

98

90%

rkda

,10%

%

ays

%

Paid o

1,9

off a

98

0%

amo

8,10

ount

0%

ts

In particular, with the aim of identifying better and, thus, distinguish, the nature of thefalls within the generic group of accidents caused by slipping or stumbling, it is notedthat the falls of a person from height are prevailing both in terms of number of events(42.2%) and of paid off amounts (49.8%) as it is also shown in the following table andfigure.


35

Figure 3.1.1 - Distribution of the accidents occurred in the workplace according to number, work-days and paid off amounts, divided according to the deviation - Year 2009.

Table 3.1.2 - Distribution of accidents occurred at work, caused by slipping or stumbling, accordingto number, paid off workdays and amounts, distinguished according to slip and fall -Year 20099.

Detail slip and fallNumber of Paid off Paid offaccidents workdays amounts

Fall of person from height 272 38.815 3.450.591(42,2%) (49,8%) (52,5%)

Slipping or stumbling with fall of the 235 24.034 1.857.497person - on the same level (36,4%) (30,8%) (28,3%)

Slipping or stumbling with fall of the 138 15.087 1.259.990person - not specified (21,4%) (19,4%) (19,2%)

Total645 77.936 6.568.078

(100%) (100%) (100%)

N

O

S

Nuacc

No i

Oth

Slipp

mbecide

info

er d

ping

er oents

orma

devi

g or

ofs

atio

atio

r stu

on, u

on

umb

Pa

und

bling

aid o

ete

g – w

off w

rmi

with

wor

ned

h fa

kda

d or

ll of

ays

not

f the

P

t pr

e pe

Paid

rese

erso

d off

ent i

on

f am

n th

mou

he e

nts

explanaationn

4. Statistical data on accidents aboard ships

In the following paragraphs we show the statistical data concerning the injuries causedby falling from height and on the same level contained in the databanks, respectively,of the Inail’s Navigation Sector and of the Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports(MIT). In this regard, we highlight that the analysis carried out by comparing the stati-stic data extrapolated by the above mentioned databanks, are exclusively of a quanti-tative type because the acquisition and the subsequent classification made by INAILand MIT is of a different nature.In fact, INAIL records the accidents occurred and reported by its insured people whilethe MIT records both the accidents notified in the accident forms coming from mariti-me authorities, as provided for in article 26 of the legislative decree n. 271 of 27 July1999, and the accidents in seafaring work through the outcomes of the investigationsdrawn by the Harbourmasters’ Offices.

4.1 Identification of the type of accident and classification

The purpose of this research is to identify the injuries caused by slip and fall on thesame level or from height, aiming to put into evidence not only their severity and fre-quency, but also their main characteristics so as to set out prevention measures.To pursue such an objective, similarly to the EUROSTAT methodology8 established at


36

Figure 3.1.2 - Distribution of accidents at work, caused by slipping or stumbling, according tonumber, paid off workdays and amounts, distinguished for slipping and fallsYear 2009.

NNum

P

mbe

Paid

Paid

er of

d off

d of

f ac

f wo

ff am

cide

orkd

mou

ents

days

unts

s

s

s

8 European Statistical Office (Eurostat) dealing with data collection from the Member States of the European Unionwith statistical data and process them, promoting the harmonization process of the statistical methodology amongMember States. Eurostat’s mission is to provide the European Union with a high quality information system, with datacomparable between Countries or Regions.

FFall of ppersson from aabovve SSlipppingg orr stuumbblingg – wwithh fall off the peersoon -- same level

SSlipppingg orr stuumbblingg – wwithh fall off the peersoon -- unndettermmineed

European level, the overall number of injuries recorded will be analyzed withouttaking into account commuting accidents, that is the accidents occurred on the wayto work and home or work-canteen, canteen-work, in order to focus only on the casesoccurred at work, because they represent the very risk of the activity carried out bythe worker.The variables to be examined are those of the classification system of injuries thatthe INAIL has adopted since January 2001 and the one established at Europeanlevel, defined ESAW (European Statistics on Accidents at Work). The codificationsystem, born in early Nineties and concluded approximately ten years later, wasimplemented in three stages, each one leading to the identification and standardiza-tion of a set of variables suitable to describe as completely as possible the accident.The first stage regarded the set up, the definition and the standardization of the clas-sification of basic variables for the description of the accident (employer’s economicactivity, victim’s age, gender and occupation, place and nature of the injury, geo-graphical place, date and time of the injury).The second stage is represented by a follow up of the first stage and the extensionof secondary variables, such as nationality and professional level of concerned per-son, company size and number of days off.Eventually, the third stage was aimed at identifying the way occupational accidentsoccurred (place type, work type, specific physical activity, deviation and concernedmaterial agents).The information provided in the first two stages allow for the identification of com-pany, victim, injury and consequences, while the one in the third stage contributes toassess the causes and circumstances of accident to suggest targeted preventionmeasures. The information regarding the causes and the circumstances of the acci-dent, together with other information on the same case, the injured person and thework environment may give some interesting cues of what happened and, therefore,help to define practical and targeted suggestions for prevention. For such reasons,the analysis shall relate the interest diversion (slipping and fall) with the features ofthe concerned person (gender, nationality...), of the ship (ship type), of the injury(nature of the impairment, part of body injured) and other elements of the incident(place type, work type).

4.2 The data of the INAIL NAVIGATION Sector

4.2.1 Foreword

The falls from height are the focus of this analysis; they occur during the activities inthe maritime sector, already object of a study by the former IPSEMA, aimed at formu-lating measures appropriate to reduce their frequency and seriousness.The statistics of accidents that are focused in this study are partly connected to theship construction features, which provide some particular structures (frames, plates,


37

girders, high degrees stairs, decks, etc.) and partly to the occupation activity properof seafarers who are required to walk aboard in conditions that are unstable becau-se of ship movements like rolling and pitching on surfaces (decks) made slippery byhostile weather conditions.In order to meet the Research Project goals, it was deemed appropriate to analyzethe whole number of accidents occurred to seafarers (paragraph 4.2.2) and thenmore specifically, the ones related to falls and slipping (paragraph 4.2.3) to assesstheir importance, features and global incidence. As already pointed out, these areinjuries occurred on the workplace, that is occurred during the performance of work,which are taken into account without commuting accidents, considering both theinformation concerning both the cause and the circumstance of the injury-relatedevent (ESAW/3 variables), and the ones concerning the victim (age, gender, profes-sional qualification) and the unit (ship type).

4.2.2 The general overview of the injury occurrence in the maritime sector

In order to have a general overview of the injuries occurred to seafarers, an observa-tion period of eight years (2004-2011) has been taken into consideration. From ananalysis of the injuries in such a period, divided into event type, it emerges that onaverage, 98% of injuries occurred on the workplace:


38

Table 4.2.2.1 - Total number of injuries occurred over the period 2004-2011 according to type of event.

Length 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

On the workplace 1.468 1.359 1.460 1.488 1.359 1.271 1.230 988(99,7% (98,6%) (97,4%) (97,8%) (97,3%) (97,8%) (96,9%) (98,6%)

Commuting 5 19 39 34 38 29 39 14(0,3%) (1,4%) (2,6%) (2,2%) (2,7%) (2,2%) (3,1%) (1,4%)

Whole 1.473 1.378 1.499 1.522 1.397 1.300 1.269 1002number (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)


39

Figure 4.2.2.1 - Trend of the overall accidents occurred in the period 2004-2011.

In the following figure, a decreasing trend of the overall number of injuries may beassessed from 2008, in a five-year period between 2007 and 2011 amount to a dropof one third approximately of the cases.

The ship types mostly concerned by injuries occurred on the workplace resultPassenger Ships (Transport of people), that alone include on average half of thecases, followed by Bulk carriers (Goods transport) and Fish catching ships, respec-tively involved, on average, for 20.2% and 16% of cases.

Table 4.2.2.2 - Accidents occurred at the workplace in the years 2004-2011 distributed according to ship type.

(1) Passenger + Board concessionaries + Pleasure crafts on rental registered in the “International Register”(2) Coastal fishing + Mediterranean Fishing + Fishing beyond straits (3) Ship testing crew, technicians and inspectors (these are professional categories and not ship types)(4) Pleasure crafts: this category includes ships and crafts with any means of powered engine reserved to recreational sea-

going activities for sport or pleasure, with an onboard crew hired on a signing-on contract basis.

It should be noted that the ship types where accidents mostly occur are PassengerShips (on average 49.7%), Bulk carriers (on average 20.2%) and Fish catching ves-sels (on average 16.0%), which, on the other hand, are also those that recorded themost consistent reductions, respectively 25%, 52.6% and 31.2% as compared to2004. As regards the injured person, the most concerned age group results the 35 and 49years old (on average in 38.4% of cases), followed by the younger group (18-34years old), with 30.5% of cases and, then, by the older one (50-64 years old, with29.9% of cases).Over time, the distribution of the accidents for maritime’s main qualifications is con-firmed, which remain the same: sailors, ship’s boy and cabin boy (over 40% of inju-ries occurred on the workplace), although in slight decrease over the last few years.

Finally, among injured people, the most concerned nationalities are Italian seafarers(on average equal to 94%) while among the foreigners, Tunisian and Romanians sea-farers.Among the injuries bumps, distortions and bone fractures are prevalent, which,alone, account for 74.3% of cases, as it is shown in the following figure and diagram.


40

Table 4.2.2.4 - Accidents happened on the workplace over the years 2004-2011 distributed for mainqualifications of the victim.

Injured person qualification 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sailor 319 273 279 278 232 217 200 178(21,7%) (20,1%) (19,1%) (18,7%) (17,1%) (17,1%) (16,3%) (18,0%)

Ship’s boy - common apprentice 196 194 191 158 166 159 132 115(13,4%) (14,3%) (13,1%) (10,6%) (12,2%) (12,5%) (10,6%) (11,6%)

Cabin boy 165 183 176 206 187 168 147 68(11,2%) (13,4%) (12,0%) (13,8%) (13,7%) (13,2%) (12,0%) (6,9%)

Sub Total 680 650 646 642) 585 544 479 361(46,3%) (47,8%) (44,2%) (43,1%) (43%) (42,8%) (38,9%) (36,5%)

Other qualifications 788 709) 814) 846 774 727 751 627(53,7%) (52,2%) (55,8%) (56,9%) (57,0%) (57,2%) (61,1%) (63,5%)

Whole amount1.468 1.359 1.460 1.488 1.359 1.271 1.230) 988

(100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

The injured parts, in most cases, are the lower limbs, the hands and fingers or theupper limbs (respectively with an average of 24.9%, of 17.8% and 12.4%) as it isshown below.


41

Table 4.2.2.5 - Accidents happened on the workplace over the years 2004-2011 distributed for injurymain nature.

Nature of injury 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Bruises, excoriations, grazes 625 563 626 675 636 576 534 366(42,6%) (41,4%) (42,9%) (45,4%) (46,8%) (45,3%) (43,4%) (37,0%)

Sprains, twists, dislocations 202 177 190 203 181 163 199 185 (13,8%) (13,0%) (13,1%) (13,6%) (13,3%) (12,8%) (16,2%) (18,7%)

Bone fractures, infractions, crushings 259 274 246 214 245 205 198 160 (17,6%) (20,2%) (16,8%) (14,4%) (18,0%) (16,1%) (16,1%) (16,2%)

Wounds with lacerations and bumps 91 87 105 91 73 87 89 87(6,2%) (6,4%) (7,2%) (6,1%) (5,4%) (6,8%) (7,2%) (8,8%)

Wounds from cuts 48 30 43 40 38 24 30 35(3,3%) (2,2%) (2,9%) (2,7%) (2,8%) (1,9%) (2,4%) (3,5%)

Multiple injuries 31 41 41 29 24 25 27 32(2,1%) (3,0%) (2,8%) (1,9%) (1,8%) (2,1%) (2,3%) (3,3%)

Other or no information 212 187 209 236 162 191 153 123 (14,4%) (13,8%) (14,3%) (15,9%) (11,9%) (15,0%) (12,4%) (12,5%)

Total1.468 1.359 1.460 1.488 1.359 1.271 1.230) 988

(100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

Figure 4.2.2.5 - Accidents happened on the workplace distributed for injury nature Years 2004-2011 average.

W

Bo

Wou

one

unds

frac

s wi

ctur

Sp

Bru

Ot

th l

res,

prain

uises

ther

ace

infr

ns, t

s, ex

r or

M

Wo

erati

ract

twis

xco

no

Mult

ound

ions

tion

sts,

riat

info

tiple

ds f

s an

s, c

dis

ion

orm

e in

from

nd b

rush

loca

s, g

matio

juri

m cu

um

hing

atio

raze

on

es

uts

ps

gs

ns

es

2,4

2,7

%

7%

66,8%%

113,8

14,3

8%

3%

16,9%

443,11%


42

Table 4.2.2.6 - Accidents happened on the workplace in the years 2004-2011 distributed accordingto part of body injured.

Injured parts 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Lower limbs 358 336 340 361 329 291 365 258(24,5%) (24,7%) (23,3%) (24,3%) (24,3%) (22,9%) (29,7%) (26,1%)

Hands and fingers 273 244 268 247 245 233 179 201(18,6%) (18,0%) (18,4%) (16,6%) (18,0%) (18,3%) (14,6%) (20,3%)

Upper limbs 167) 174 184 194 176 157 172 101(11,4%) (12,8%) (12,6%) (13,0%) (13,0%) (12,4%) (14,0%) (10,2%)

Multiple parts 124 148 164 160 127 158 120 64(8,4%) (10,9%) (11,2%) (10,8%) (9,3%) (12,4%) (9,8%) (6,5%)

Thorax, ribs, back 128 116 122 143 135 93 100 133(8,7 (8,5%) (8,4%) (9,6%) (9,9%) (7,3%) (8,1%) (13,5%)

Head (cranium, neck, nape) 101 86 116 97 91 72 68 62(6,9%) (6,3%) (7,9%) (6,5%) (6,7%) (5,7%) (5,5%) (6,3%)

Feet and toes 93 104 99 81 87 90 58 58(6,3%) (7,7%) (6,8%) (5,4%) (6,4%) (7,1%) (4,7%) (5,9%)

Abdomen, hips, pelvis, sacral bone area 57 48 51 59 69 47 40 39(3,9%) (3,5%) (3,5%) (4,0%) (5,1%) (3,7%) (3,3%) (3,9%)

Face (mouth, nose, ears) 38 23 34 34 33 37 46 20(2,6%) (1,7%) (2,3%) (2,3%) (2,4%) (2,9%) (3,7%) (2,0%)

Eyes 52 28 16 39 29 30 23 23(3,5%) (2,1%) (1,1%) (2,6%) (2,1%) (2,4%) (1,9%) (2,3%)

Vertebral column 22 17 20 10 13 9 9 6(1,5%) (1,3%) (1,4%) (0,7%) (1,0%) (0,7%) (0,7%) (0,6%)

Internal organs 9 7 11 6 3 24 8 2(0,6%) (0,5%) (0,8%) (0,4%) (0,2%) (1,9%) (0,7%) (0,2%)

Brain, spinal cord, nervous system 3 - 1 1 - 4 13 1(0,2%) (0%) (0,1%) (0,1%) (0,0%) (0,3%) (1,1%) (0,1%)

No information 43 28 34 56 22 26 29 20(2,9%) (2,0%) (2,2%) (3,7%) (1,6%) (2%) (2,2%) (2,0%)

Total1.468 1.359 1.460 1.488 1.359 1.271 1.230 988

(100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

In relation to the breakdown on the basis of the severity of the injury, it is appropriate topoint out that the cases need an appropriate time frame to be completely defined andthat such a time frame should be approximately of three years since the accident hap-pened. Therefore, in order to rely on sufficiently stable and representative data of thereal situation and willing to draw a clear picture of the current situation, it was deemedappropriate to refer to such cases over the period 2004-2009, excluding more recentdata which are still under assessment because the records are being processed.If we consider, along the accident frequency, the severity of the injuries, it is possibleto deduce that, on average, in 66.6% of cases these are accidents without perma-nent consequences and that, also in cases with permanent consequences, the shareof a disability degree below 16% is relevant, being almost nine cases out of ten.


43

Figure 4.2.2.6 - Accidents happened on the workplace according to victim’s part of the body inju-red - Years 2004-2011.

Abbdommenn, h

F

ips,

Hea

Face

, pe

ad (c

e (m

lvis,

cran

T

H

mou

, sac

nium

Tho

Han

th,

cral

Fee

m, n

orax

Mu

U

nds a

Lo

nos

bo

et a

neck

x, rib

ltip

Uppe

and

owe

O

se, e

ne a

nd t

k, na

bs, b

le p

er li

fin

er li

the

ears

area

toe

ape

bac

part

mb

ger

mb

r

s)

a

s

e)

k

s

s

s

s

2,5%

3,9%

6,5

6,3

6,5

5%

3%

5%

9,3

9

3%

9,9%%

12,4%%

177,8%%

224,99%

Table 4.2.2.7 - Accidents happened on the workplace in the years 2004-2009 distributed for yearand consequences.

Year No permanentWith permanent consequences

Fatal Grandevent consequences Disability degree Disability degree Disability degree total

between 1% and 5% between 6% and 15% between 16% and 100%

2004 1.133 (77,2%) 99 (6,7%) 183 (12,5%) 44 (3,0%) 9 (0,6%) 1.468 (100%)

2005 918 (67,5%) 171 (12,6%) 210 (15,5%) 54 (4,0%) 6 (0,4%) 1.359 (100%)

2006 969 (66,4%) 212 (14,5%) 202 (13,8%) 58 (4,0%) 19 (1,3%) 1.460 (100%)

2007 985 (66,3%) 256 (17,2%) 176 (11,8%) 60 (4,0%) 11 (0,7%) 1.488 (100%)

2008 853 (62,8%) 274 (20,2%) 177 (13,0%) 48 (3,5%) 7 (0,5%) 1.359 (100%)

2009 758 (59,7%) 275 (21,6%) 173 (13,6%) 59 (4,6%) 6 (0,5%) 1.271 (100%)

Finally, in analysing causes and circumstances of the accidents, and taking intoaccount the year 2009, richer in terms of ESAW/3 variable classification representingthe information at its best, it results that the place with a major accident incidence is onboard ships. In particular, in 56% of cases, the injury event occurred during navigation,that is in open sea, whilst in 40% of cases the event occurred on a ship in harbour.


44

Figure 4.2.2.7 - Accidents happened on the workplace distributed for year and consequences -average years 2004-2009.

66,6%

15,5%

13,4%

4,5%3,8%

0,7%

4,5%

no permanent consequences permanent inability between 1 and 5%

permanent inability between 6 and 15% more severe events

permanent inability between 16 and 100% death

Figure 2 - Place type for accidents happened on the workplace - Event year 2009.

56%

40%

4%

1%

3%

4%

in open sea (on board)

in port (on board)

other other (industrial site, place open to public transit, etc.)

no information


45

Table 4.2.2.8 - Accidents on the workplace in 2009 for Injured person’s work type.

Type of job 2009

Supplementary activities 505 (39,8%)

Production, manufacturing, treatment, storage of any kind 416 (32,7%)

Fishing-related activities, using alive animals, etc. 173 (13,6%)

Activities of service to company and/or to person; intellectual work 47 (3,7%)

Circulation, sport activity, artistic activity 22 (1,7%)

Other, undetermined 108 (8,5%)

Total 1.271 (100%)

Figure 4.2.2.8 - Accidents on the workplace in 2009 for Injured person’s work type.

Pr

A

F

odu

Activ

Fish

uctio

vitie

hing

on,

Ci

es of

-rel

tran

rcul

f se

ate

nsfo

latio

rvicin

d ac

orm

on,

ce tontel

ctiv

atiok

spo

o colect

ities

on, tkind

ort a

omptual

s, u

tread

Su

Oth

activ

pany wo

sing

atm

pple

her,

vity,

y anork

g ali

ent

eme

un

, art

nd/o

ve a

t, sto

enta

det

tisti

or to

anim

orag

ary

erm

ic ac

o pe

mals

ge o

act

mine

ctiv

erso

s, et

of a

iviti

ed

ity

on;

tc.

ny

ies

Still referring to 2009, the type of activity performed by the victim at the time of acci-dent (that is the job/task performed when the accident happened, which do notcoincide with the worker’s profession or qualification) resulted in approximately87% of cases related to the activities classified as complementary (40%) or thoseincluded in the category “production and manufacturing of products - storageincluded” (33%) or for fishing-related activities (14%).

As regards the breakdown of the accidents in relation to the action performed at thetime of accident, identified with the variable ESAW/3 called Specific Physical Activity,we note a prevalence of injuries due to victim’s movements (66%) in most part repre-sented by walking or going up (71%) and the injured person’s handling of objects(16%), mainly due to the movement of grabbing or taking the object or the tool by thehand (51%) or in fastening / untying something (15%).

39,7%

32,7%

13,6%

3,7%

1,7%

8,5%

As regards the contact, that is the contact mode through which the victim sufferedthe more severe injury, in more than 50% of case a crush of the victim in movementagainst a stationary object is reported; in particular, such movement results in 83%of cases vertical, that is, resulting from a fall.


46

Table 4.2.2.9 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 - Injured person’s specific physicalactivity.

Specific Physical Activity 2009

Movements 844 (66,4%)

Handling of objects 206 (16,2%)

Operating machine 24 (1,9%)

Transporting by hand 51 (4,0%)

Working with hand-held tools 27 (2,1%)

Presence 28 (2,2%)

Other and not determined 91 (7,2%)

Total 1.271 (100%)

Figure 4.2.2.9 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 - Victim’s Specific Physical Activity.

67%

13%

16%4%

Movements Other and not determined Handling of objects Transport by hand

Finally, in relation to the deviation, that is the variable describing what in the processprovoked the injury the result is, as outlined in the analysis of the contact modes, thatfalls due to stumbling or slipping are prevalent (50.7%), which in 42% of cases leadto fall from above (stairs, ladders, chair, scaffolding, etc.), in 36% to fall on the samelevel and in 22% to fall from a not specified level.


47

Table 4.2.2.10 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for Contact.

Contact 2009

Crushing in vertical movement under a stationary object or against 696 (54,8%)a horizontal stationary object (victim in motion)

Contact with a cutting, sharp, hard, abrasive, material agent 118 (9,3%)

Struck with an object in motion, collision 92 (7,2%)

Physical or psychical effort 96 (7,6%)

Trapping, crushing, etc. 75 (5,9%)

Contact with electricity, temperature, hazardous substance 72 (5,7%)


Total 1.271 (100%)

Figure 4.2.2.10 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for Contact.

Co

C

onta

C

Con

act w

Crusobj

tact

with

shinect

t wi

Str

h a c

ng inor a

ith e

ruck

cutt

n veaga

elec

k wi

ting

erticinst

ctrics

th a

, sha

cal mt an

O

city,ubs

Ph

an o

harpge

movhor

Othe

, temsta

Tr

hysi

obje

p, ht

vemrizo

er a

mpece

rapp

ical

ect i

ard,

entonta

nd

erat

ping

or

n m

, ab

unl sta

not

ture

g, cr

psyc

moti

bras

der atio

det

e, ha

rush

chic

on,

ive,

a sonar

term

azar

hing

cal e

col

ma

tatiry o

min

rdou

g, et

effo

lisio

ater

onabjec

ed

us

tc.

ort

on

rial

aryct…

n

n

54,8%

9,3%

7,2%

7,6%

5,9%

5,7%

9,5%

The outlook that emerges in the analysis of deviation, representing the variable withthe greater information content for prevention purposes, confirms the necessity ofcarrying out a case study to investigate slips and falls, as almost half of the accidentsrelated to this deviation event are cause of injury.


48

Table 4.2.2.11 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for Deviation.

Deviation 2009

Slipping or stumbling with fall of person 645 (50,7%)

Movement of the body under physical strain (generally 132 (10,4%)leading to an internal injury)

Movement of the body without physical effort (generally 122 (9,6%)leading to an external injury)

Total or partial loss of control of a machine, transport 104 (8,2%)means / handling equipment, of hand-held tool or object, of animal

Breakage, fracture, burst, slipping, fall, 89 (7,0%)collapse of the material agent

Deviation due to leaking, flowing, overflowing, loss, 29 (2,3%)splashing, vaporisation, spraying

Deviation due to electrical problems, explosion, fire 29 (2,3%)


Total 1.271 (100%)

Figure 4.2.2.11 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for Deviation.

Br

Tom

Dev

Dev

eak

otal mea

viat

viat

kage

or ans

M

ion

ion

e, fr

part/ h

Move

Mo

due

due

actu

tial and

eme

ovem

Sl

e to

e to

ure,

lossdling

ent

men

lipp

o ele

o lea

, bu

s ofg eq

of t

nt o

ping

ectri

akin

urst,

f conquip

the

of th

or s

O

ical

g, f

slip

ntropme

bod

he b

stum

Othe

pro

low

ppin

ol ofnt,

dy w

ody

mbl

er an

oble

wing,

ng, f

f a mof h

with

y un

ing

nd n

ems,

, ov

fall,

machand

hout

nder

wit

not

, ex

verfl

col

chind-he

t ph

r ph

th fa

det

xplo

low

lap

e, teld

hysic

hysic

all o

term

sion

ing,

se o

rantoo

cal e

cal s

of pe

mine

n, fi

, los

of th

spool or

effo

stra

erso

ed

re

ss,

he

ortr…

ort

in

on

2,

2,

,3%

,3%

7

9,

7,0%

8,2

9,

1

5%

%

%

6%

0,4%%

50,7%

maaterrial aagent

ssplaashing, vapporisation, sprraying

(ggenerally leaddingg to an eexteernaal innjuryy)

(generallyy leaading too ann intternnal injurry)

4.2.3 Slipping and stumbling with fall of the victim

We would like to confirm once again that, similarly to the EUROSTAT methodology,only the accidents deriving from or caused by a working activity performed in a strictsense shall be object of this analysis, that is, commuting accidents on the way homeor to work, are excluded from the case study in question. These type of accidents,according to their definition, represent the occurrence of a transversal risk related butnot equal to the working activity performed. It should be noted that the in-depth analysis will be based, in particular, on the year2009, because it is assumed that the administrative and medical process leading tocomplete a case may need an appropriate time frame of at least three years, for tworeasons: the complexity of the ESAW variables may extend the timetable of the casecodification (in 2009 the incidence of the cases with no information or in the processof being codified represented approximately 5%, resulting as a sufficiently accepta-ble average share for the five variables).The variable codification identified in the third phase of the ESAW project allow forthe identification of three independent levels/sequences, necessary to describe theincident, that is:1. the circumstances immediately preceding the accident (place type, work type,

specific physical activity)2. the event causing the accident (deviation)3. the injury mode (contact).Therefore, in this part of the study it was deemed appropriate to analyse all the varia-bles of interest, taking the part related to slipping and stumbling separated from theothers in order to stress its peculiarities.In particular, independently from the ship type considered, as shown in the followingtable, the incidence of the accidents associated with slips and falls is higher thanother deviations taken into account.


49

Table 4.2.3.1 - Accidents occurred at the workplace in the years 2004-2011 for deviation.

Year

Type of deviationGrand

Slipping or stumbling Other

No deviation, totalwith fall of the person

deviationnot determined or not

not specified present in the list

2004 631 (43,0%) 567 (38,6%) 270 (18,4%) 1.468 (100%)

2005 742 (54,6%) 540 (39,7%) 77 (5,7%) 1.359 (100%)

2006 737 (50,5%) 606 (41,5%) 117 (8,0%) 1.460 (100%)

2007 703 (47,2%) 642 (43,2%) 143 (9,6%) 1.488 (100%)

2008 680 (50,0%) 573 (42,2%) 106 (7,8%) 1.359 (100%)

2009 645 (50,7%) 507 (39,9%) 119 (9,4%) 1.271 (100%)

2010 476 (38,7%) 456 (37,1%) 298 (24,2%) 1.230 (100%)

2011 343 (34,7%) 327 (33,1%) 318 (32,2%) 988 (100%)


50

Table 4.2.3.2 - Accidents happened the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or falling” distributed fordeviation in detail.

Detail slipping and falls 2009

Fall of person from height 272 (42,2%)

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of person - on the same level 235 (36,4%)

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of person - not specified 138 (21,4%)

Total 645 (100%)

Figure 4.2.3.1 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or falling” distributedfor deviation in detail.

Amongst the cases of slip and fall, it results that the fall from height is predominant(42.2%); in 86% of cases it results as a “fall from stairs”, followed by injuries causedby slipping or stumbling on the same level (36.4%), as shown in the following tableand related figure.

Taking into consideration the “Passenger” ship type, which, as already seen, resultsas the most concerned by the cases considered in this research (57.2%), it emergesthat the accidents caused by falling from height (49.0%) record the highest numbersamongst maritime workers.

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of person - not specified;

21,4%

Fall of personfrom height;

42,2%

Slipping or stumbling - with

fall of person - onthe same level;

36,4%

When we examine the single ship types, it emerges that the fall of a person fromabove is prevailing especially for the “passenger” ship type, in which it represents66.9% of the overall injuries caused by slipping or falling; slipping on the same levelis prevailing, on the contrary, in the “fishing” type, with a rate of 26.4%.Fall from above, as shown in the following figure, is predominant also in the type of“cargo” carriers and “tugboats”, but it is not very different from the share represen-ting slip and fall on the same level.


51

Table 4.2.3.3 - Accidents occurred at the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed for devia-tion in detail and ship type.

Detail slipping and falls

Slipping or Slipping or GrandShip type Fall of person stumbling - with fall stumbling - with fallfrom height of person - on the of person - not

total

same level specified

Passenger 182 102 85 369

Bulk carrier 44 35 19 98

Fishing 17 62 16 95

Tug boats 16 13 5 34

Recreational 6 17 3 26

Auxiliary ship 4 5 5 14

Local traffic 3 1 5 9

Grand total 272 235 138 645

Figure 4.3.2.1 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed fordeviation in detail and ship type.

Passenger Cargo Fishing Tug & tow OtherFall of person from above 66,9% 12,6% 6,3% 5,9% 4,8%Slipping or stumbling – with fall of

the person - same level 43,4% 14,9% 26,4% 5,5% 9,8%

Slipping or stumbling – with fall of the person - undetermined 61,6% 13,8% 11,6% 3,6% 9,4%

Total slipping and falls 57,2% 15,9% 14,7% 5,3% 7,6%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%


52

Table 4.2.3.4 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed for partsinjured.

Slipping or Slipping orGrandFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withInjured part of the body from height fall of person - on fall of person - not total

the same level specified

Lower limbs 69 (25,4%) 75 (31,9%) 36 (26,1%) 180 (27,9%)

Multiple parts 77 (28,3%) 23 (9,8%) 29 (21,0%) 129 (20,0%)

Upper limbs 35 (12,9%) 41 (17,4%) 18 (13,0%) 94 (14,6%)

Thorax, ribs, back 25 (9,2%) 31 (13,2%) 10 (7,2%) 66 (10,2%)

Head (cranium, neck, 23 (8,5%) 9 (3,8%) 8 (5,8%) 40 (6,2%)nape)

Feet and toes 10 (3,7%) 20 (8,5%) 10 (7,2%) 40 (6,2%)

Hand and fingers 9 (3,3%) 19 (8,1%) 7 (5,1%) 35 (5,4%)

Abdomen, hips, pelvis, 12 (4,4%) 8 (3,4%) 9 (6,5%) 29 (4,5%)sacral bone area

Face (mouth, nose, ears) 6 (2,2%) 9 (3,9%) 8 (5,8%) 23 (3,6%)

Other 6 (2,1%) 0 (0%) 3 (2,3%) 9 (1,4%)

TOTAL 272 (100%) 235 (100%) 138 (100%) 645 (100%)

In reference to the part of body injured, in 62.5% of cases the parts concerned arethe limbs (upper or lower) and multiple parts of the body. In particular, in cases of fallsfrom height, multiple parts are mostly affected (28.3%), whilst in cases of fall on thesame level the lower limbs are more concerned (31.9%).In relation to that, it should be observed that hand and finger injuries, which in othercases result as predominant, in this case are not very frequent.

In general, slipping and falls, independently from the possibility that they involve theworker’s fall on a lower level or on the same level, mainly involve the lower limbs(27.9%), multiple parts of the body (20.0%) and then the upper limbs (14.6%) and thethorax, the ribs and the back (10.2%).It should be highlighted that the frequency of the injured parts varies depending onthe possibility that the fall is to a lower level or on the same level. In fact, when weanalyse only the cases involving a fall from height of the injured person, it is obser-ved that it involved, in more than a half of cases, multiple parts of the body (28.3%)and lower limbs (25.4%), whilst in the case of slipping or fall involving the fall of per-son on the same level, it is observed that the most involved parts are the lower limbs(31.9%) together with cases leading to injuries of upper limbs (17.4%) and to thorax,ribs and back (13.2%), which, if aggregated, represent more than half of cases.

Moreover, when we analyse the prevailing type of injury nature, due to slipping or fall,we observe that bumps, sprains and fractures result as the most frequent injuries witha much higher share (90% approximately as compared to an average rate of 74% overthe same period), concentrated in particular for bumps (alone, equal to 60%).


53

Figure 4.2.3.3 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “fall of the injured person fromheight” distributed for injured part.

Abbdommenn, h

F

ips,

Hea

Face

, pe

ad (c

e (m

H

lvis,

cran

T

mou

Han

, sac

nium

Tho

th,

nds a

Fee

cral

m, n

orax

U

Lo

Mu

nos

and

et a

bo

neck

x, rib

Uppe

owe

ltip

O

se, e

fin

nd t

ne a

k, na

bs, b

er li

er li

le p

the

ears

ger

toe

area

ape

bac

mb

mb

part

r

s)

s

s

a

e)

k

s

s

s

2,1%

2,2%

3

%

%

3,3%

3,7%

4,

%

%

4%

8,5

9,

5%

,2%%

12,99%

25,,4%

28,3%

Figure 4.2.3.4 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “fall of the injured person on thesame level” distributed for injured part.

Abbdommenn, hips,

Hea

F

, pe

ad (c

Face

lvis,

cran

e (m

H

T

, sac

nium

mou

Han

Tho

cral

m, n

th,

nds a

Fee

Mu

orax

U

Lo

bo

neck

nos

and

et a

ltip

x, rib

Uppe

owe

O

ne a

k, na

se, e

fin

nd t

le p

bs, b

er li

er li

the

area

ape

ears

ger

toe

part

back

mb

mb

r

a

e)

s)

s

s

s

k

s

s

0,0%%

3,4

3,8

3,

4%

8%

9%

8,

8,

1%

,5%

9,8

%

8%

113,22%

117,44%

311,9%%

Furthermore, as regards the injury nature, it is observed that, either in the case of thefalls from above and of the falls on the same level, more than a half of the injuries isrepresented by bruises, excoriations and grazes, which respectively account for64.0% and 51.1% (see figure below).


54

Table 4.2.3.5 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or falling” distributed fornature of injury.

Slipping or Slipping or

TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withNature of injury from height fall of person - on fall of person - not


Bruises, excoriations, grazes 174 (64,0%) 120 (51,1%) 93 (67,4%) 387 (60,0%)

Sprains, twists, dislocations 35 (12,9%) 42 (17,9%) 19 (13,8%) 96 (14,9%)

Bone fractures, infractions, crushing 33 (12,1%) 42 (17,9%) 14 (10,1%) 89 (13,8%)

Wounds with lacerations and bumps 8 (2,9%) 10 (4,3%) 6 (4,3%) 24 (3,7%)

Multiple wounds 8 (2,9%) 9 (3,8%) 0 (-) 17 (2,6%)

Muscular distractions, lumbagos 6 (2,2%) 5 (2,1%) 3 (2,2%) 14 (2,2%)

Other and not determined 8 (3,0%) 7 (2,9%) 3 (2,2%) 18 (2,8%)

Total 272 (100%) 235 (100%) 138 (100%) 645 (100%)

Figure 4.2.3.5 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or falling” distributedaccording to injury nature.

Sl

Sl

lipp

lippth

BrSpBo

Ot

ing the

ing he p

ruiseprainone

ther

Fal

or se pe

or spers

es, ens, tfrac

r an

l of

stumerso

stumson

excotwiscturcru

nd n

per

mbln -

mbl- u

oriasts, res,shinot d

rson

ing sam

ing nde

ationdisl infngsdete

n fro

– wme l

– weter

ns, glocaract

erm

om

with leve

with min

grazatiotion

ine

abo

fallel

fallned

To

zesns

ns,

d

ove

l of

l of

otal

0%

Fallfro

of om a

64,12,

12,

10,

perabo

0%9%

1%

1%

2

sonove

20%

n

%

stufal

Sliumbll of- sa

4

ppiblinf theame51,17,9

17,9

17,9

40%

ng og –

e pee lev1%9%

9%

9%

%

or wit

ersovel

th on

6

stufal- u

60%

Slipumbl of und

61

1

1

%

ppinblingtheete67,413,8

10,1

12,1

ng og –

e permi

4%8%

1%

1%

8

or wit

ersoned

80%

h n

d

%

T

61

1

1

10

Tota

60,014,9

13,8

13,8

00%

al

0%9%

8%

8%

%


55

Table 4.2.3.6 - Accidents occurred at the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed accordingto injured person’s qualification.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withQualification of thefrom height fall of person - on fall of person - notinjured person


Seafarer 28 (10,3%) 51 (21,7%) 26 (18,8%) 105 (16,3%)

Cabin or ship’s boy - common 44 (16,2%) 29 (12,3%) 22 (15,9%) 95 (14,7%)apprentice

Cabin boy 46 (16,9%) 21 (8,9%) 25 (18,1%) 92 (14,3%)


Total 272 (100%) 235 (100%) 138 (100%) 645 (100%)

Figure 4.2.3.6 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for injured person qualification,distinguished for detail, deviation of interest.

As regards the distribution of the accidents in relation to injured person’s age, thereare no particular differences as compared to the data deriving from the overall num-ber of injuries (see, paragraph 4.2.2. above).As regards, instead, the occupational qualification, in relation to the frequency of theaccidents that are consequence of a fall lo a lower level or of slipping on the samelevel, the three, most concerned qualifications are confirmed. However, it is to benoted the shares of falls to a lower level of “cabin boys” and ship boys (16.9% and16.2% respectively) and of slipping on the same level of seafarers (21.7%).

In fact, as it is evidenced in the figure below, for the categories of “cabin boy” andthe ship’s boy it is recorded a greater probability of falling to a lower level (50.0% and46.3%, respectively) whilst for seafarers the fall on the same level is most prevalent:


56

Table 4.2.3.7 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed accor-ding to injury consequences.

Detail slipping or fall

Slipping or Slipping or TotalConsequences Fall of person stumbling with - stumbling with -from above fall of person - fall of person -

on the same level not specified

No consequences 130 (47,9%) 149 (63,4%) 66 (47,9%) 345 (53,4%)

Disab. degree 1%-5% 73 (26,8%) 47 (20,0%) 34 (24,6%) 154 (23,9%)

Disab. degree 6%-15% 42 (15,4%) 33 (14,0%) 30 (21,7%) 105 (16,3%)

Disab. degree 16%-100% 27 (9,9%) 6 (2,6%) 7 (5,1%) 40 (6,2%)

Death - (0,0%) - (0,0%) 1 (0,7%) 1 (0,2%)

TOTAL 272 (100%) 235 (100%) 138 (100%) 645 (100%)

In relation to the after-effects of the injuries deriving from falls and slipping, whetherthey happen from height or not, it is noted that for more than half of cases, theycause injuries with no permanent after-effects (53.5%), which, if added up with thoseinvolving a permanent disability degree between 1% and 5% (23.9%) they amount, ingeneral, to more than three quarters of cases.

Analysing now the cases with permanent consequences, it has to be noted that theirpercentage calculated for the falls from above (52.2%) results as much higher thanthat associated with slipping on the same level (36.6%), denoting thus that the firsttype of injury events are more severe as shown in the following figure.

Figure 4.2.3.7 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed forinjury consequence (distribution in % for detail: slipping or falls).

0,

10,

20,

30,

40,

50,

60,

70,

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

NNo coonsequuenc

F

S

S

T

ces

Fall o

Slipp

Slipp

Tota

of p

ping

ping

al sli

Di

pers

g or

g or

ppi

sab

on f

stu

stu

ng a

. de

from

mb

mb

and

egre

m a

ling

ling

fal

ee 1

bov

g – w

g – w

ls

%-5

ve

with

with

5%

h fal

h fal

Di

l of

l of

sab

f the

f the

b. de

e pe

e pe

egre

erso

erso

ee 6

on -

on -

6%-1

sam

und

15%

me

det

%

leve

erm

Dis

el

mine

ab.

ed

deg 10ree % 16%-100%


57

Table 4.2.3.8 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall”, distributed for con-sequences (distribution in % for consequence) and detail deviation.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withConsequences from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Without consequences 130 (37,7%) 149 (43,2%) 66 (19,1%) 345 (100%)

Disab. degree 1%-5% 73 (47,4%) 47 (30,5%) 34 (22,1%) 154 (100%)

Disab. degree 6%-15% 42 (40,0%) 33 (31,4%) 30 (28,6%) 105 (100%)

Disab. degree 16%-100% 27 (67,5%) 6 (15,0%) 7 (17,5%) 40 (100%)

Death - (0,0%) - (0,0%) 1 (100,0%) 1 (100%)

Total 272 (42,2%) 235 (36,4%) 138 (21,4%) 645 (100%)

Associated with more severe consequences, therefore, there are slipping or stum-bling with fall from height or to a lower level, accountable for, respectively, 40% and67.5% of cases, with a degree of permanent disability between 6% and 15% and ofthose with a disability degree of more than 15%.

From the figure below, it may be noted how the falls to a lower level, from height, areresponsible of most part of the accidents with permanent disability consequences,independently from the class of disability degree considered; in addition to that,within the most severe cases (with a disability degree of more than 15%), the rateboosts to 67.5%.

Figure 4.2.3.8 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed forinjury consequence (spread % for consequences) and detail of deviation.


58

Table 4.2.3.9 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed for injuryconsequence (spread % for consequences) and detail of deviation.

ConsequencesSlipping Other Totalor falls deviation accidents

Without consequences 345 (53,5%) 413 (66%) 758 (59,6%)

Permanent disability degree 1%-5% 154 (23,9%) 121 (19,3%) 275 (21,6%)



Death 1 (0,2%) 5 (0,8%) 6 (0,5%)

Total 645 (100%) 626 (100%) 1.271 (100%)

Finally, when the consequences of the occupational injuries caused by slipping orfalls from above or on the same level are compared with those related to other devia-tions, it emerges that such cases have a higher share of permanent consequences(from 33.2% to 46.4%), showing a greater average severity.

The difference between the consequences of slipping and falls and the total numberof the other deviations, appears to be more evident if assessed taking into accountthe different contribution of such cases in the context of the consequences. It maybe noted, in fact, that in permanent consequences it is prevalent the share of injuriescaused by slipping and falls; and more the severity of the consequences grows moresuch share is bound to increase (from 56.0% for cases with a permanent disabilitydegree between 1% and 5% to 67.8% of the most severe cases with a major perma-nent disability degree of more than 15%).

Figure 4.2.3.9 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 distributed for deviation and for injuryconsequences (spread % for deviation).

NNo conssequ

45,

54,

uen

5%

5%

ces Disab. de 5

5

4

gre %

56,0

44,0

e 1

0%

0%

%- Disab. deg 15%

6

3

ree

0,7%

9,3%

6%

%

%

- DDisab. d 1degr 00%

67

32

ree %

7,8%

2,2%

16%

%

%

%-

slipping or ffallss

ootheer deeviaations


59

Table 4.2.3.10 - Accidents occurred at the workplace in 2009 spread out for deviation and for injuryconsequences (distribution % for deviation).

ConsequencesSlipping Other Totaland falls deviation injuries

No consequences 345 (45,5%) 413 (54,5%) 758 (100%)

Permanent disability degree 1%-5% 154 (56%) 121 (44,0%) 275 (100%)

Permanent disability degree 6%-15% 105 (60,7%) 68 (39,3%) 173 (100%)

Permanent disability degree 16%-100% 40 (67,8%) 19 (32,2%) 59 (100%)

Death 1 (16,7%) 5 (83,3%) 6 (100%)

Total 645 (50,7%) 626 (49,3%) 1.271 (100%)

Table 4.2.3.11 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 caused by “slipping or fall”, distribu-ted according to type of place.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withType of place from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Sea or ocean; on board any 149 (40,9%) 160 (44,0%) 55 (15,1%) 364 (100,0%)type of ship, vessel, barge, platform

Lake, river, port; on board 123 (44,1%) 74 (26,5%) 82 (29,4%) 279 (100,0%)any type of ship, vessel, barge, platform

Other type of place - (0%) 1 (50,0%) 1 (50,0%) 2 (100,0%)

Total 272 (42,2%) 235 (36,4%) 138 (21,4%) 645 (100,0%)

Moreover, when we analyze the environment where the victim was at the time of acci-dent, related to his/her working activity, the difference between falls from height(42.2%) and slipping on the same level (36.4%) remains essentially in a greater con-centration of the falls from above in case of ship in harbour or in inland navigation(44.1% as compared to 26.5%), since in case of open sea navigation the differencebetween the two deviations is not marked (41% and 44% respectively).

Slipping and stumbling on the same level result, on the contrary, typically related tocomplementary and fishing-related activities (60.9% and 23.0%, respectively) whilstin the falls from above the activities of storage (49.3%) followed by those classifiedas complementary (37.9%) are predominant.


60

Table 4.2.3.12 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 caused by “slipping or fall”, distribu-ted according to type of work.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withType of work from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Supplementary activities 103 (37,9%) 143 (60,9%) 18 (13,0%) 264 (40,9%)

Production, manufacturing, 134 (49,3%) 20 (8,5%) 92 (66,7%) 246 (38,1%)treatment, storage - of any kind

Farming, forestry, fishing 14 (5,1%) 54 (23,0%) 19 (13,8%) 87 (13,6%)activities with use of live animals - not specified

Other type of work not 21 (7,7%) 18 (7,6%) 9 (6,5%) 48 (7,4%)included in this list

Totale 272 (100%) 235 (100%) 138 (100%) 645 (100%)

Table 4.2.3.13 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping or fall” distributed for specific physical activity.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withSpecific physical activity from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Walking, running, going up, going 251 (92,3%) 138 (58,7%) 91 (65,9%) 480 (74,4%)down, etc.

Moving on the spot 6 (2,2%) 48 (20,4%) 2 (1,4%) 56 (8,7%)

Movements - not specified 6 (2,2%) 8 (3,5%) 33 (23,9%) 47 (7,3%)


Total 272 (100%) 235 (100%) 138 (100%) 645 (100%)

The action leading to the fall from above of the injured person results, in almost thetotality of cases (92.3%) “Going up and going down” a stairway, whilst slip and fallon the same level include, in addition to “walking, running, going up” (58.7%) alsomovements on the spot (20.4%).

Finally, the prevailing modes causing the injury result, both for the falls from aboveand for those on the same level, in vertical movements of the victim (97.1% and80.4%) because both derive from a fall of the injured person.

4.3 INAIL data in relation to small-scale fishing

Fishing in inland waters, small-scale sea fishing (self-employed workers or cooperati-ve with ships of a maximum gross tonnage of 10 tons) and complementary activitiesof lagoon fish breeding, mussel farming and oyster farming recorded over the period2004-2008 an average of approximately 390 claims of which, 90% approximately,were compensated.Despite the fact that almost all of the compensations regard temporary disabilities(91% on average), the share of more severe cases (permanent disabilities and fatalcases) results in a percentage (9%) from which it emerges a higher risk in the fishingsector as compared to the overall context of Industry and Services (6%).In particular, when we analyze the mode in which accidents occur, it was decided tochoose 2007 as a reference year, because it is more populated in terms of codifica-tion of ESAW/3 variables (with an indetermination degree of 3%).Slipping and stumbling causing the fall on the same level or to a lower level of the inju-red person results as a determining event in the dynamics of the accident for morethan once out of five, since other deviations, such as those identified as “Breakage,


61

Table 4.2.3.14 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2009 for “slipping and fall” distributed forcontact.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withContact from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Vertical movement, resulting 264 (97,1%) 189 (80,4%) 107 (77,5%) 560 (86,8%)in a fall

Horizontal movement on/against 1 (0,4%) 15 (6,4%) 12 (8,7%) 28 (4,4%)


Total 272 (100%) 235 (100%) 138 (100%) 645 (100%)


62

Table 4.3.1 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2007, compensated by the INAIL, distributedaccording to deviation - small-scale fishing.

Deviation 2007

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of person - not specified 22,5%

Breakage, fracture, bursting, slipping, fall, collapse of material agent 22,2%- not specified

Total or partial loss of control of machine, of means 20,9%of transport or handling equipment, of hand-held tool, or object, of animal - not specified

Movement of body under physical stress (generally leading to an 15,8%internal injury) - not specified

Movement of body without physical stress (generally leading to an 12,9%external injury) - not specified

Other deviation and not determined or not listed 5,7%

Total 100,0%

Table 4.3.2 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2007, compensated by the INAIL, caused by“slipping or falls” distributed according to deviation in detail - small-scale fishing.

Slipping or stumbling in detail 2007

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of person - on the same level 84,3%

Fall of person from above 8,6%

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of person - not specified 7,1%

Grand total 100,0%

fracture, fall of material agent, etc.” (22.2%) and “Loss of control of transport meansor handling equipment, etc.” account for 22.2% and 20.9% respectively.

It is necessary to remark that in almost all of the cases, it is a fall on the same level,as shown in the following table.

The most concerned parts of body are the lower limbs (30.0%), the thorax and inter-nal organs (28.6%) and the upper limbs (22.9%) which obviously reflect the distribu-tion of the cases involving slipping on the same level, which represent almost thetotal number of them.


63

Table 4.3.3 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2007, compensated by INAIL, caused by“slipping or falls” distributed for detail of deviation and part of the body injured - small-scale fishing.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withContact from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Lower limbs 33,3% 30,5% 20,0% 30,0%

Thorax and internal organs 33,3% 25,4% 60,0% 28,6%

Upper limbs 0,0% 27,1% 0,0% 22,9%

Backbone 16,7% 11,9% 0,0% 11,4%

Head 16,7% 5,1% 20,0% 7,1%

Grand total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Table 4.3.4 - Accidents occurred at the workplace in 2007, compensated by INAIL, caused by“slipping or falls” distributed for detail of deviation and nature of injury - small-scalefishing.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withNatur of injury from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Dislocation 50,0% 25,4% 40,0% 28,6%

Bruise 50,0% 25,4% 20,0% 27,1%

Fracture 0,0% 23,7% 40,0% 22,9%

Wound 0,0% 16,9% 0,0% 14,3%

By other agents 0,0% 6,8% 0,0% 5,7%

By stress 0,0% 1,8% 0,0% 1,4%

Grand total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

In relation to the nature of injury, it is recorded that in 78.6% of cases the injured per-son reports a dislocation, a bruise or a fracture.


64

Table 4.3.5 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2007, compensated by INAIL, caused by“slipping or fall” distributed for detail of deviation and occupational qualification -small-scale fishing.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withOccupational qualification from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Fisherman 83,3% 89,8% 80,0% 88,6%

River sailor 0,0% 5,1% 0,0% 4,3%

Other or indetermined 16,7% 5,1% 20,0% 7,1%

Grand total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Table 4.3.6 - Severity index of accidents happened on the workplace in 2007 and compensated byINAIL for deviation - small-scale fishing.

Deviation Severity index

Slipping or stumbling - with fall of person 14,3%

Other deviation 7,9%

Total 9,3%

Analysing the qualification of seafarers, it is noted, as shown in the table below, that ninetimes out of ten they are fishermen and, secondarily, river sailors:

It has to be noted that the severity ratio (incidence in percentage of severe cases onthe overall number of compensated workers) is stable at 9.3% considering all thedeviations, whilst, when the attention is drawn on slipping with fall, the severity ratiorises to 14.3%. Therefore, slipping involves a greater risk, considering also the com-parison with the totality of other deviations.

For more than a half of cases, stumbling is associated with movements of the vic-tim and, in particular, with walking, running, going down, going up, and in 28.6%of cases it is a consequence of handling of objects (mainly taking hold of and grasping).

Finally, as regards the mode by which the injured person is affected by the injurywhen slipping, in most cases it is inherent to the fall and partially caused by a con-tact with sharp or rough material agent.

4.4 Data from MIT - analysis of the accidents at sea caused by falls fromabove and on the same level 2005-2011

4.4.1 Foreword

The General Directorate for Seagoing and Shipping Transports and InlandWaterways of the Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports, hereinafter called MIT, inthe context of the activities related to the INAIL research project concerning seafarerinjuries caused by falls from above and on the same level, carried on a study on thedynamics and the most frequent causes of maritime fall-related accidents, occurredon the ships flying the Italian flag and/or sailing in national waters, over the years2005 to 2011.The study was mainly aimed at the research of the critical points that led to this typeof accidents, of their consequences both in economic and social terms, and containsrecommendations and proposals for correction actions, both at operation and legallevel, which could be implemented with the purpose of avoid or, in any case, reducetheir reiteration.The analysis of the data carried on by the MIT is based on the information contained inthe accident forms filled by maritime authorities in accordance with article 26 ofLegislative decree n. 271 of 27 July 1999. Moreover, the MIT receives also the summaryand formal investigations carried on by maritime authorities (Maritime directions and


65

Table 4.3.7 - Accidents happened on the workplace in 2007 and compensated by INAIL, caused by“slipping or fall”, distributed for detail of deviation and specific physical activity - small-scale fishing.


TotalFall of person stumbling - with stumbling - withSpecific physical activity from above fall of person - on fall of person - not


Movements 50,0% 52,5% 60,0% 52,9%

Handling of objects 16,7% 28,8% 40,0% 28,6%

Transport by hand 0,0% 10,2% 0,0% 8,6%

Working with hand-held tools 16,7% 3,4% 0,0% 4,3%

Other or indetermined 16,6% 5,1% 0,0% 5,6%

Grand total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Harbourmasters’ Offices) in accordance with article 55 of the Decree of the Presidentof the Republic n. 1124/1965, in case of accidents with consequences of invalidity towork above 30 days. Selecting from such investigations those related to the accidentscaused by falls, it was possible to assess the dynamics of the accident for a betterunderstanding of concurrent factors that, together, contributed to its evolution.

4.4.2 Methodology

For the purpose of this Research, in relation to the MIT data, it has been decided,to analyse the accidents recorded between 1 January 2005 and 31 December2011. In particular, the extrapolation of these data was made following this metho-dology:

The data used in the analysis and referred to the injuries occurred from 1January 2005 to 31 December 2011, were sent by the maritime authorities com-petent for the territory to the MIT, by paper or electronic communication means.The information contained in the communications sent in this way were subse-quently extracted and inserted into the Accidents Data Bank.

Before proceeding in the analysis, it is pointed out that the data related to 2001could be incomplete, since it is possible that for the current year the office mightnot have received all of the communications concerning the accident andcoming from the maritime authorities. Moreover, it is appropriate to remark thatthe MIT data related to 2009 were estimated on the basis of the information avai-lable for such year, because a part of the data was lost due to a failure of theinformation system.

On purpose of the analysis, the data have been extracted and aggregated accor-ding to appropriate qualitative and quantitative variables representative of the typeof accident occurred and of the working environment, as well as of the personal fea-tures of the injured person, such as age and occupational qualification, so as toinclude in the examination the different variables apt to identifying the risk factorsand the critical issues recurrent in the notification/reports of accidents happened onnational ships over the period between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2011.

In order to foster the comparison between the information sent by the MIT andthose of the INAIL databank, it has been decided to harmonize the categoryvariables “Age of the injured person”, “Injury type”, “Part of the body injured” and“Occupational qualifications” (profession of the victim) in accordance to themodalities specified in the appendix.


66

4.4.3 Analysis outcomes

Over the period between 2005 and 2011 the Offices of the Ministry of Infrastructureand Transport received9 6,637 communication of maritime injuries, of which 3,506happened due to a fall, from above or on the same level, on board ships.


67

9 Taking into account the extrapolation of the data related to 2009.

Table 4.4.3.1 - Consistency of the accidents occurred for falls from above or on the same level andthe overall injuries - Years 2005-2011.

Year DataCauses of the accident

Number of accidentsFall from above or

Other causes for yearon the same level

2005 N. 438 348 786% (55,73%) (44,27%) (100,00%)

2006 N. 545 521 1.066% (51,13%) (48,87%) (100,00%)

2007 N. 592 570 1.162% (50,95%) (49,05%) (100,00%)

2008 N. 569 519 1.088% (52,30%) (47,70%) (100,00%)

2009 N. 516 466 982% (52,55%) (47,45%) (100,00%)

2010 N. 501 441 942% (53,18%) (46,82%) (100,00%)

2011 N. 345 266 611% (56,46%) (43,54%) (100,00%)

Totale N. 3.506 3.131 6.6372005-2001 % (52,83%) (47,17%) (100,00%)

Source: MIT Data, Harbourmaster’s Office

Over the period 2006-2007 an increment in the frequency of notifications of accidentwas observed; from 2008, however, it is noted a general decreasing trend in the inci-dence of accidents, confirming the results from the INAIL data.

4.4.3.1 Distribution for type of naval unit

As it is shown in the tables and figures below, the time series of the accidents cau-sed by fall from above or on the same level shows a trend similar to that of acci-dents in general; in particular, a pitch of accidents in correspondence with 2007for roll on-roll off ship cruisers for passengers transport and for passengers andgoods is recorded; for 2008 it is recorded for passenger ships. It should be observed that the term roll on-roll off ships, specified in the tables andfigures below, includes both passenger and goods ships (ro-pax), representing85.16% of the overall sample and ro-ro ferries for the transport of goods only,which accounts for a remaining 14.84%.


68

Figure 4.4.3.1 - Consistency of the accidents occurred due to falls from above and on the samelevel, and of the overall injuries - Years 2005-2011.

Num

ber o

f acc

iden

ts

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

f

0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

2

F

2005

alls

5

s for

20

rm a

006

abovve o

200

or th

07

he s

2

ame

200

e lev

8

vel

20009

O

9

Othe

20

er ca

10

ausees

20111


69

Figure 4.4.3.1.1 - Time series of the accidents (all of them), for ship type - Years 2005-2011.

12233

4

45

050

10015020025030050

00

50

000

200

Ple

Ot

05

easu

her

2

ure

/ U

2006

craf

Unkn

6

fts

now

20

wn

007

Dry

Pas

20

y bu

ssen

08

ulk

ngerr tra

200

ansp

09

portt

20

Liqu

Fish

10

uid

hing

bulk

g ve

20

k

ssel

011

ls

Pleasu

Liq

S

R

re c

quid

Ot

Serv

Ro-r

craf

d bu

her

Fish

vice

ro fe

fts

lk

r / U

hing

e un

erri

Unkn

g ve

its

es

now

esse

wn

els

Figure 4.4.3.1.2 - Time series of accidents due to fall from above and on the same level, for shiptype - years 2005-2011.

1

15

20

25

0

50

00

50

00

50

2200

Ple

Ot

05

easu

her

20

ure

/ U

006

craf

Unkn

fts

now

20

wn

07

Dry

Fish

200

y bu

hing

08

ulk

g veesse

200

ls

09 201

Liqu

Pas

10

uid

sen

bulk

nger

201

k

r tra

P

11

ansp

Plea

port

asur

Liqu

O

S

t R

re c

uid

Oth

P

Serv

Ro-r

raft

bul

her /

Pass

vice

ro fe

ts

k

/ Un

seng

e un

erri

nkno

ger t

its

es

own

tran

n

nspoort


70

Table 4.4.3.1.1 - Causes of the accident, for ship type - Period 2005-2011.

Ship type DataCauses of the accident

TotalFalls from aboveOther causesand on the same level

Dry bulk N. 168 141 309% (54,37%) (45,63%) (100,00%)

Liquid bulk N. 188 160 348% (54,02%) (45,98%) (100,00%)

Roll on-roll off ferries N. 1.259 1.127 2.386(passengers and cargo) % (52,77%) (47,23%) (100,00%)

Passenger transport N. 616 499 1.115% (55,25%) (44,75%) (100,00%)

Service units N. 299 194 493% (60,65%) (39,35%) (100,00%)

Fishing boats N. 551 591 1.142% (48,25%) (51,75%) (100,00%)

Recreational boats/ships N. 28 25 53% (52,83%) (47,17%) (100,00%)

Other/not known N. 396 394 790% (50,13%) (49,87%) (100,00%)

Grand total N. 3.506 3.131 6.637% (52,83%) (41,17%) (100,00%)

Source: MIT Data, Harbourmaster’s Offices

The ship category that is mostly susceptible to injuries, be they due to falls or to othercauses, results that of ferries for passenger transport and passenger and goods, fol-lowed by the category of fishing boats/ships and passenger ships.By examining the following table, it is evident that the ship units that, for any reason,transport passengers, such as the passenger ships and the ferries (for passengerand passenger-bulk transport) are involved in a share of accidents equal to 53% ofthe total number of maritime accidents occurred over the period taken into conside-ration for all the ship types.

As shown in the figure 4.4.3.1.3, the fall from above or on the same level is the maincause in more than half the incidents for almost every ship type, and in particular forservice and auxiliary ships, for which 60.65% of injuries results as caused by a fallfrom above or on the same level.

Examining the accidents due to falls according to the causal factor that provoked thefall, it is observed (table 4.4.3.1.2 and figure 4.4.3.1.4) that the most frequent type of fallfor almost every ship type seems to be for slipping, that is the fall on the same level cau-sed by stumbling on a protruding object or structure (steps, coamings), by slipping ona wet or oily surface, or by tripping during boarding or disembarkation from ship, espe-cially if the action is done without due attention ( boardwalk, accommodation opening).


71


Figure 4.4.3.1.3 - Causes of the accident, for ship type - Period 2005-2011.

TTyppe oof shhip

Rooll on-rooll ooff fferri

Re

ies (

ecre

P

(pas

Ot

eatio

Pass

ssen

her

ona

F

seng

nger

/ n

l bo

Fish

Ser

ger

rs a

Li

ot k

oats

hing

vice

tran

nd

iqui

Dr

know

s/sh

g bo

e un

nsp

carg

d b

ry b

wn

ips

ats

nits

ort

go)

ulk

ulk

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12200 144000

Other acccideent

Faalls form aabovve oor thhe ssame leevel

NNummbeer of accciddentts

Table 4.4.3.1.2 - Cause of the injury due to falls from above or on the same level, for ship type -Period 2005-2011.

Fall on Fall on Fall onFall over GrandShip type Data board - for board - for board - other

board totalwave slipping causes

Dry bulk N. 4 114 45 6 170% (2,35%) (67,06%) (26,47%) (3,53%) (100%)

Liquid bulk N. 8 146 30 1 185% (4,32%) (78,92%) (16,22%) (0,54%) (100%)

Ro-pax ferries N. 28 909 311 18 1.266% (2,21%) (71,80%) (24,57%) (1,42%) (100%)

Passenger transport N. 18 445 141 7 611% (2,95%) (72,83%) (23,08%) (1,15%) (100%)

Operating units N. 19 213 57 10 299% (6,35%) (71,24%) (19,06%) (3,34%) (100%)

Fishing boats/ships N. 31 424 75 20 550% (5,64%) (77,09%) (13,64%) (3,64%) (100%)

Recreational ship/boats N. 2 - 3 23 28% (7,14%) - (10,71%) (82,14%) (100%)

Other/unknown N. 19 308 58 11 396% (4,80%) (77,78) (14,65%) (2,78%) (100%)

Grand total N. 129 2.560 720 97 3.506% (3,68%) (73,02%) (20,54%) (2,77%) (100%)


72

Figure 4.4.3.1.4 - Cause of the injury due to falls from above or on the same ground, for ship type- Period 2005-2011.

Ship

type

Pa

pyp

sse

Ot

Ro eng

SeFisPleher

SLi

- pger ervshineasr /

Solqu

pax traice ng vureUn

id bid bfernspun

vese crkno

Fa

Fa

bulbulrriepor

nitesselraftow

all o

all o

kk

esrteslstsn

on b

on b

0

boa

boa

ard

ard

- by

- ot

20

y w

the

00

ave

r ca

e

ause

4

es

4000 60

Nu

00

umbber

F

F

8

r of

Fall

Fall

800

f ac

on

ove

0

ccid

boa

er b

den

ard

boa

10

ts

- b

rd

000

by s

0

lipp

1

ping

120

g

00 144000

The accidents due to a fall on pleasure crafts, in countertrend with the previous data,occur mainly for a fall over board: as it is possible to see in the table above and inthe figure below; these falls represent, respectively, 82.14% of the injuries caused byfall and 41.682% of the overall injuries of relevant accidents occurred in recreationalships. 62.37% of the people injured for falling into the sea over the period 2005-2011belonged to the occupational category of deck crew, whilst in 13.98% of cases (thatis 13 overall cases in the period considered) this type of accident occurred to pas-sengers on board ship.

4.4.3.2 Distribution for nature and part of the body injured

As clearly shown in the tables and figures below, the type of injury most frequentlysuffered by an injured person and due to a fall, results the “concussion, bump, exco-riation and bruise” which are reported in 61.65% of cases over the period 2005-2011.Other frequent injuries are sprains, twists or luxations (11.98%) and fractures, infrac-tions or crushing (11.78%).

The following table 4.4.3.2.2 rather contains the distribution in percentage of injuries,divided according to the type of fall occurred. From the analysis, it is shown that con-cussions and bumps are the most frequently reported injuries amongst accidentscaused by falls on board (61.83% of the injuries reported for fall) and the mode, evenif with a lower frequency (23.66%) of fall overboard. In case of falls, also sprains,strains, luxations, fractures, infractions and crushing are frequent injuries; in case ofoverboard falls, drowning is a frequent injury (17.2% of injured people for falling overboard).


73

Table 4.4.3.2.1 - Nature of injuries caused by falls from above and on the same level - Years 2005-2011.

Natur of injury Dati 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total ofperiod

Concussions, bumps, excoriations, bruises

Sprains, twists, luxations

Fractures, infractions, crushing

Cut wound, with lacerations and bumps

Internal ruptures, hernia,muscle distractions, lumbagos

Puncture wounds

Drowning , Intoxicationsby gas, by food, asphyxiations

Frostbites

Other injuries - unknown

Total

N. 279 337 367 392 286 305 193 2.159% 63,70% 61,83% 61,99% 68,89% 55,47% 60,88% 55,94% 61,59%

N. 63 69 84 37 69 58 40 420% 14,38% 12,66% 14,19% 6,50% 13,28% 11,58% 11,59% 11,97%

N. 57 59 69 57 74 53 44 413% 13,01% 10,83% 11,66% 10,02% 14,32% 10,58% 12,75% 11,78%

N. 11 32 28 16 23 24 18 152% 2,51% 5,87% 4,73% 2,81% 4,43% 4,79% 5,22% 4,33%

N. 3 2 3 8 11 5 5 37% 0,68% 0,37% 0,51% 1,41% 2,08% 1,00% 1,45% 1,05%

N. 1 - 3 9 7 5 6 31% 0,23% - 0,51% 1,58% 1,30% 1,00% 1,74% 0,88%

N. - 1 3 7 4 2 9 26% - 0,18% 0,51% 1,23% 0,78% 0,40% 2,61% 0,74%

N. - 3 1 1 - 4 3 12% - 0,55% 0,17% 0,18% - 0,80% 0,87% 0,34%

N. 24 42 34 42 43 45 27 257% 5,48% 7,71% 5,74% 7,38% 8,33% 8,98% 7,83% 7,33%

N. 438 545 592 569 516 501 345 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%


Cut wounds or wounds with lacerations and bumps appears as less frequent injuriesin accidents caused by a fall on board as compared to the accidents caused by afall overboard; this data could be related with the wounds caused by contact with apropeller in movement, reported by injured persons fallen into the sea from sea-going units.


74

Table 4.4.3.2.2 - Nature of injuries caused by falls from above and on the same level, for fall type -Years 2005-2011.

Fall on Fall on Fall onFall over GrandNature of injury Data board - for board - for board - other

board totalwave stumbling causes

N. 69 1.611 464 23 2.168% 53,23% 62,95% 64,50% 23,66% 61,83%

N. 5 316 88 8 418% 4,03% 12,34% 12,27% 8,60% 11,91%

N. 22 306 63 18 409% 16,94% 11,97% 8,80% 18,28% 11,68%

N. 7 100 34 10 152% 5,65% 3,90% 4,76% 10,75% 4,33%

N. 7 20 8 - 35% 5,65% 0,77% 1,15% - 1,01%

N. 1 22 3 4 30% 0,81% 0,85% 0,43% 4,30% 0,86%

N. 1 7 1 17 26% 0,81% 0,28% 0,14% 17,20% 0,74%

N. 2 7 - 3 12% 1,61% 0,28% - 3,23% 0,36%

N. 15 170 57 14 256% 11,29% 6,66% 7,94% 13,98% 7,29%

N. 129 2.560 720 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%




Cut wound, with lacerations and bumps


Puncture wounds

Drowning , Intoxicationsby gas, by food, asphyxiations

Frostbites


Total


75

Figure 4.4.3.2.1 - Nature of injuries caused by falls from above and on the same level, for mode offall - Years 2005-2011.

O

F

Df

Othe

Fros

Drowfood

er in

stbit

wnind, as

njur

tes

ng ,sph

ries

, Intyxia

- un

oxication

nkno

cations

own

ons

n

by gass, byy

P

Id

Pun

ntedistr

ctur

rnalract

re w

l ruptions

wou

pturs, lu

nds

res, umb

s

herbago

rniaos

, muusclle

CbCut bum

woumps

undds, wwith lacerattions annd

FFraccturees, infractionss, crrushhing

SSpraainss, twwistss, luuxatiionss

CbConbruis

ncusses

ssions, bummpss, exxcorriatioons,

Nb

fid

tNum

ber o

f acc

iden

ts

1

1

2

2

0

500

000

500

2000

2500

0

0

0

0

0

0

Fbfo

Fall boaror w

onrd –

wave

–e

Fb

stu

Fall oarumb

onrd -blingg

Fbooca

all ooardotheaus

on d –er ses

Fabll ovoar

verrd

Table 4.4.3.2.3 - Part of body injured due to fall from above or on the same level, for fall type - Years2005-2011*.

Fall on Fall on Fall onFall over Total

Injured part of theData board - for board - for board - other

boardbodywave slipping causes

N. 30 769 239 35 1.073% 23,39% 30,03% 33,19% 36,56% 30,62%

N. 32 744 161 10 948% 25,00% 29,06% 22,37% 10,75% 27,03%

N. 26 390 135 5 556% 20,16% 15,22% 18,76% 5,38% 15,86%

N. 9 240 65 7 322% 7,26% 9,38% 9,09% 7,53% 9,19%

N. 16 184 44 3 246% 12,10% 7,18% 6,06% 3,23% 7,02%

N. 5 135 45 6 191% 4,03% 5,28% 6,20% 6,45% 5,45%

N. 7 31 7 3 49% 5,65% 1,22% 1,01% 3,23% 1,39%

N. 3 68 24 26 121% 2,42% 2,64% 3,32% 26,88% 3,44%

N. 129 2.560 720 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Lower limbs

Thorax, ribs, back,backbone

Head (cranium, neck, nape)

Upper limbs

Hands and fingers

Feet and toes

Abdomen, pelvis

Other part - unknown

Totale



76

Figure 4.4.3.2.2 - Part of body injured due to fall from above or on the same level - Period 2005-2011.

In analysing the reported injuries due to a fall, it emerges that the most affected partsof body in accidents due to fall from above or on the same level are the lower limbs(30.62% of overall injuries over the period considered), the upper trunk (27.03%) andthe head (15.86%). In particular, over the period 2005-2011, about a third of the fallsdue to slipping and other causes and more than a third of falls over board, provokedinjuries to the lower limbs.

Lower limb injuries due to a fall, which are most frequently reported are concussions,bumps and excoriations (54.11% of relevant injuries), and sprains, twists and luxa-tions (26.23%); in injuries to the thorax, ribs, back and head, injuries such as bumpsand bruises are rather prevailing, which constitute, respectively, 73.14% and 76.07%of the injuries related to such accidents.

Head (cranium, neck, nape)

15,86%

Upper limbs9,19%

Hands andfingers7,02%

Feet and toes5,42%

Abdomen,pelvis1,39%

Other part -unknown

3,44%

Lower limbs30,62%

Thorax, ribs,back, backbone

27,03%

4.4.3.3 Analysis of the work environment and worker occupation

When we examine the accidents due to a fall from above or on the same level in rela-tion to the working conditions in which they happened (table 4.4.3.3.1, figure44.4.3.3.1), it emerges that the injuries due to a fall occur in generally lighted workingenvironments (artificial light in 47.09% of cases, and in natural light conditions in41.70% of cases). In particular, the accidents due to a fall on board for other causesand due to a fall for stumbling happen in artificial light (respectively 54.11% and46.71% of accidents occurred for the corresponding type of fall).


77

Table 4.4.3.2.4 - Part of the body injured, due to fall from above or on the same level, for injury natu-re - Years 2005-2011*.

NatureData

Injured partTotalof Lower

Thorax, ribs,Upper Abdomen Other part -

injury limbsback, Head

limbsHands and Feet and

pelvis unknownbackbone fingers toes

N. 581 693 423 208 114 59 39 50 2.168% 26,80% 31,98% 19,51% 9,59% 5,27% 2,73% 1,82% 2,30% 100,00%

N. 282 47 10 15 7 53 1 3 418% 67,41% 11,19% 2,49% 3,48% 1,74% 12,69% 0,25% 0,75% 100,00%

N. 91 104 15 58 63 61 4 12 409% 22,34% 25,38% 3,55% 14,21% 15,48% 14,97% 1,02% 3,05% 100,00%

N. 39 2 52 15 30 6 1 6 152% 26,03% 1,37% 34,25% 9,59% 19,86% 4,11% 0,68% 4,11% 100,00%

N. 9 14 1 6 3 - 2 - 35% 26,47% 38,24% 2,94% 17,65% 8,82% - 5,88% - 100,00%

N. 15 7 3 4 1 - - - 30% 48,28% 24,14% 10,34% 13,79% 3,45% - - - 100,00%

N. 1 3 2 - 1 3 - 16 26% 4,00% 12,00% 8,00% - 4,00% 12,00% - 60,00% 100,00%

N. 1 2 4 - 2 - - 3 12% 8,33% 16,67% 33,33% - 16,67% - - 25,00% 100,00%

N. 54 76 46 17 24 8 1 30 256% 21,14% 29,67% 17,89% 6,50% 9,35% 3,25% 0,41% 11,79% 100,00%

N. 1.073 948 556 322 246 191 49 121 3.506% 30,62% 27,03% 15,86% 9,19% 7,02% 5,45% 1,39% 3,44% 100,00%




Cut wounds, with lacerations and bumps


Puncture wounds

Drowning , Intoxications by gas, by food,asphyxiations

Frostbites


Total



78

Table 4.4.3.3.1 - Conditions of the light at the time of accident for fall from above and on the samelevel, for type of fall - Years 2005-2011.

Fall on Fall on Fall onFall GrandCondition of light Data board - for board - for board - other

over board totalwave stumbling causes

N. 42 1.196 390 24 1.651% 32,26% 46,71% 54,11% 24,73% 47,09%

N. 60 1.090 259 53 1.462% 46,77% 42,57% 35,93% 54,84% 41,70%

N. 8 107 29 6 151% 6,45% 4,18% 4,04% 6,45% 4,30%

N. 16 86 21 4 127% 12,10% 3,37% 2,89% 4,30% 3,62%

N. 3 81 22 9 115% 2,42% 3,17% 3,03% 9,68% 3,29%

N. 129 2.560 720 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Artificial

Bright

Half light

Darkness

Unknown

Total

(Source: MIT Data, Harbourmaster’s Office

Figure 4.4.3.3.1 - Lighting of the working environment in injuries caused by a fall from above or onthe same level - Period 2005-2011.

Caduta a bordo - per scivolata Caduta a bordo - altre causeCaduta a bordo - per ondata Caduta oltre bordo

Num

bero

facc

iden

ts

1

1

Num

ber o

f acc

iden

ts

20

40

60

80

1.00

1.20

0

00

00

00

00

00

00

AArttificcial Brightt Half liight DDarkkneess

Fall on board - for stumbling

Fall on board - for wave

Fall on board - other causes

Fall over board

Furthermore, it is noted that the major part of accidents due to a fall over boardoccurs in bright light conditions (54.84% of relevant injuries).

The injury due to a fall from above or on the same level causes in most cases dama-ges to the lower limbs in almost all the conditions of lighting and, in particular, in bri-


79

Figure 4.4.3.3.2 - Part of body injured due to a fall from above and on the same level, light condi-tion - Years 2005-2011.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Num

ber

of accid

ents

Artificial

Bright

Half-light

Darkness

Unknown

Table 4.4.3.3.2 - Part of the body injured when a fall from above or on the same level is concerned,for light condition - Years 2005-2011.

Condition of DataPart of body injured

Totallight Lower

Thorax, ribs, HeadUpper Other part -

limbsback, (cranium,

limbsHand and Feet and toes

unknownbackbone neck, nape) fingers

N. 494 444 313 144 116 86 54 1.651% 29,89% 26,87% 18,94% 8,75% 7,05% 5,22% 3,27% 100,00%

N. 473 384 188 143 110 91 72 1.462% 32,34% 26,30% 12,86% 9,81% 7,53% 6,25% 4,91% 100,00%

N. 37 55 18 15 9 5 11 151% 24,83% 36,55% 11,72% 9,65% 6,21% 3,45% 7,59% 100,00%

N. 37 30 22 12 6 7 11 127% 29,51% 23,77% 17,21% 9,84% 4,92% 5,74% 9,02% 100,00%

N. 32 34 16 7 4 1 21 115% 27,93% 29,73% 13,51% 6,31% 3,60% 0,90% 18,03% 100,00%

N. 1.073 948 556 322 246 191 169 3.506% 30,62% 27,03% 15,86% 9,19% 7,02% 5,45% 4,83% 100,00%

Artificial

Bright

Half light

Darkness

Unknown

Total


ght light. On the contrary, seafarers who experience an accident in conditions of poorlighting or in dim light, report, more frequently, injuries to the thorax and the back(36.55% of fall in half light).

The assessment of the injuries as opposed to the time spent from departure fromharbour of the ship unit (table 4.4.3.3.3) highlights that the units which mostly expe-rience on board accidents are the units employed for short cruises, of less than 2

Lower li

mbs

Thorax, ribs,

back, b

ackbone

Head (cranium,

neck, n

ape)

Upper limbs

Hands and fin

gers

Feet and fin

gers

Other part

-

unknown

Injured body part


80

Table 4.4.3.3.3 - Length of time spent in trip in accidents caused by fall from above or on the samelevel - Years 2005-2011

Fall on Fall on Fall onFall over GrandNormal length of trip Data board - for board - for board - other

board totalwave stumbling causes

N. 92 1.996 568 67 2.722% 70,97% 77,96% 78,93% 68,82% 77,65%

N. 21 273 69 10 373% 16,13% 10,67% 9,52% 10,75% 10,64%

N. 8 85 35 2 131% 6,45% 3,33% 4,91% 2,15% 3,73%

N. 1 76 15 1 92% 0,81% 2,96% 2,02% 1,08% 2,64%

N. 7 130 33 17 187% 5,65% 5,07% 4,62% 17,20% 5,34%

N. 129 2.560 720 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

< 2 days

2 - 8 days

9 - 21 days

≥ 22 days

Unknown

Total


days. This feature is normally present in ship types with a more numerous fleet, suchas small fishing units and pleasure crafts.

The lower limbs are the part of the body that is most affected in accidents due to fallduring short trip, whilst in trips of length between 9 and 21 days, the most injuredparts of the body are the thorax and the back.

Table 4.4.3.3.4 - Part of body injured due to a fall from above or on the same level, for length of trip.

Usual length DataPart of body injured

Totalof trip Lower

Thorax, ribs, HeadUpper Other part -

limbsback, (cranium,

limbsHand and Feet and toes

unknownbackbone neck, nape) fingers

N. 839 737 450 246 200 139 112 2.722% 30,80% 27,06% 16,53% 9,05% 7,33% 5,11% 4,12% 100,00%

N. 125 92 48 42 21 25 21 373% 33,43% 24,79% 12,81% 11,14% 5,57% 6,69% 5,57% 100,00%

N. 27 47 15 14 12 8 8 131% 20,64% 35,71% 11,11% 10,32% 9,52% 6,35% 6,35% 100,00%

N. 25 25 15 8 10 9 - 92% 26,97% 26,97% 15,73% 8,99% 11,24% 10,11% - 100,00%

N. 58 47 29 12 3 9 28 187% 31,11% 25,00% 15,55% 6,67% 1,67% 5,00% 15,01% 100,00%

N. 1.073 948 556 322 246 191 169 3.506% 30,62% 27,03% 15,86% 9,19% 7,02% 5,45% 4,83% 100,00%

< 2 days

2 - 8 days

9 - 21 days

≥ 22 days

Unknown

Total


Examining the accidents due to a fall from above or on the same level as comparedto the operation of the ship at the time of the accident, the condition of a harbouredship records the highest frequency at the time of the injury (57.91% of injuries due tofall for stumbling, 54.83% of fall for other causes and 49.46% of fall overboard); alsoduring navigation a high frequency of accidents due to a fall is recorded (69.35%caused by a wave and 46.24% overboard).


81

Operation of ship Fall on Fall on Fall onFall Totalat the time of Data board - for board - other board - for

overboardaccident slipping causes wave

N. 1.483 395 37 48 1.963% 57,91% 54,83% 29,03% 49,46% 55,98%

N. 980 293 89 45 1.407% 38,27% 40,69% 69,35% 46,24% 40,13%

N. 61 24 2 2 89% 2,39% 3,32% 1,61% 2,15% 2,55%

N. 36 8 - 2 47% 1,42% 1,15% - 2,15% 1,33%

N. 2.560 720 129 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

At bank / mooring

Underway

Loading / unloading operations

Unknown

Total


Table 4.4.3.3.5 - Ship operation in accidents due to fall from above and on the same level, for typeof fall - Period 2005-2011.

Figure 4.4.3.3.3 - Ship operation in accidents due to a fall from above or on the same level, for typeof fall - Period 2005-2011.


82

Table 4.4.3.3.6 - Operation of the ship in accidents due to fall from above and on the same level, fortype of ship involved - Years 2005 to 2011.

DataTipo di Unità Navale

TotalRo-ro ferriesServiceDry Liquid (passengers Passenger

unitFishing Pleas. Other /

bulk bulk and bulk) transport vessels ships unknown

N. 78 102 701 371 202 240 2 267 1.963% 46,30% 54,14% 55,69% 60,20% 67,36% 43,58% 7,41% 67,45% 55,99%

N. 80 72 529 229 79 293 26 100 1.407% 47,53% 38,12% 42,00% 37,10% 26,39% 53,21% 92,59% 25,20% 40,13%

N. 9 12 19 9 14 11 - 15 89% 5,56% 6,63% 1,49% 1,52% 4,51% 2,08% - 3,67% 2,55%

N. 1 2 10 7 5 6 - 15 47% 0,62% 1,10% 0,83% 1,18% 1,74% 1,13% - 3,67% 1,33%

N. 168 188 1.259 616 299 551 28 396 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

At bank /mooring

Underway

Loading/unloadingoperations

Unknown

Total


Operationof ship at thetime ofaccident

The examination of the type of operation carried out by the ship at the time of the acci-dent due to a fall, in relation to the ship type, highlights that the units on which the inju-ries due to a fall occur most frequently are the passenger ships and passenger-cargoships, for which the injury due to fall occurs while the ship is in harbour, respectively in55.69% of ferries and in 60.20% of passenger ships. Another very common conditionat the time of accident due to a fall is that of a ship underway, in particular for pleasu-re ships and fishing vessels; on those types of ships, the injuries due to a fall occur,respectively, in 92.59% and 53.21% of cases as opposed to all other ship types.

Figure 4.4.3.3.4 - Operation of ship in accidents due to fall from above and on the same level, forship type involved - Period 2005 to 2011.

Numberof

accidents

2

4

1

12

14

1

1

2

Number of

accide

nts

0

200

400

600

800

000

200

400

600

800

000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Moorred / beerthhed In nnavigattion Loooad ope

/ Uerat

Unlotion

oads

UUnkknowwn

D

R

S

P

Dry

Ro r

Serv

Plea

bul

ro fe

vice

asu

lk

erri

e un

re c

es

nitts

craf

(pa

s

fts

asseenggerss annd ggoods))

L

P

F

O

iqu

Pass

ish

Othe

id b

sen

ing

er /

bulk

ger

ves

Un

k

r tra

sse

kno

ans

els

own

por

n

rt


83

Sea and Fall on Fall on Fall onFall Totalweather Data board - for board - other board - for

overboardconditions slipping causes wave

N. 1.925 564 65 65 2.619% 75,20% 78,35% 50,00% 66,67% 74,69%

N. 415 99 58 13 584% 16,19% 13,71% 45,16% 12,90% 16,66%

N. 220 57 6 20 303% 8,60% 7,94% 4,84% 20,43% 8,66%

N. 2.560 720 129 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Favourable

Adverse

Unknown

Total


Table 4.4.3.3.7 - Sea and weather conditions in accidents due to fall from above or on the samelevel - Period 2005 to 2011.

The sea-weather conditions seem not to affect significantly the accidents due to a fallfrom above or on the same level: as it is shown in the table 4.4.3.3.7 in all the acci-dents, independently from the type of fall, there prevail favourable sea and weatherconditions, even if a foreseeable strong percentage of accidents in adverse weatherconditions (45.16%) is present in case of fall due to a wave.

For all the working environments on board ship, the most frequent mode of beinginjured due to a fall is by slipping, representing, on a whole, over the period 2005-2011 73.03% of accidents caused by a fall. The area of the ship in which accidentsdue to a fall from above or on the same level mostly occur is the main or secondarydeck (46.77% of falls for wave, 35.48% of falls overboard and 28% approximately offalls for slipping and other causes), followed by entrances, circulation ways orstairways (more than 18% of the falls for slipping and other causes) and in the engi-ne rooms (16.23% of the falls for slipping and 14% of falls for other causes).

Analyzing the accidents due to a fall in relation to the place of incident and shiptype involved (table 4.4.3.3.9), it is noted that the injury occurs more frequently onthe main or secondary deck of the ship for almost all of the ship types, especiallyfor pleasure ships (74.07% of accidents due to a fall) and fishing vessels (50.19%of accidents due to a fall). In countertrend, there are the passenger ships and bulkand passenger ships, for which the area where most frequently the accidents dueto a fall happen is represented by the entrances to rooms and on board gangways(24.50% of injuries for a fall on ferries and 21.25% of injuries on passenger ships).


84

Fall on Fall on Fall onFall TotalArea of ship Data board - for board - other board - for

overboardslipping causes wave

N. 714 206 60 34 1.014% 27,88% 28,57% 46,77% 35,48% 28,93%

N. 476 130 8 10 624% 18,59% 18,04% 6,45% 10,75% 17,81%

N. 416 101 6 3 526% 16,23% 14,00% 4,84% 3,23% 15,00%

N. 181 62 11 5 260% 7,06% 8,66% 8,87% 5,38% 7,41%

N. 170 56 11 5 243% 6,66% 7,79% 8,87% 5,38% 6,94%

N. 159 38 5 - 203% 6,21% 5,34% 4,03% - 5,78%

N. 89 27 9 4 130% 3,49% 3,75% 7,26% 4,30% 3,71%

N. 80 15 2 8 105% 3,12% 2,02% 1,61% 8,60% 2,99%

N. 30 8 4 1 44% 1,18% 1,15% 3,23% 1,08% 1,24%

N. 24 8 3 - 35% 0,93% 1,15% 2,42% - 1,01%

N. 221 69 7 25 322% 8,64% 9,52% 5,65% 25,81% 9,19%

N. 2.560 720 129 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Main or secondarydeck

Entrances / passageways

Engine rooms

Holds / Depot / Garage

Accommodations

Galley / Canteen / Food store

Forecastle

Access to ship / home-ship itinerary

Winches

Bridge

Other - unknown

Total


Table 4.4.3.3.8 - Accidents due to a fall from above and on the same level, divided for ship area inwhich the accident occurred - Period 2005 to 2011.

The injury that is mostly recurrent in accidents due to fall, for all the working environ-ments on board the ship, is that related to concussions, bumps, excoriations andbruises (61.83% of the overall injuries in accidents due to a fall, occurred over theperiod 2005-2011). In particular, this type of injury is reported by more than 75% ofthe injured people and derives from a fall in the accommodations and in the galley,canteen or food store, and by 70.55% of people injured for a fall in the gangways,entrances, stairways or ladders, and, finally, by 65.02% of people injured in conse-quence of a fall in the engine rooms.


85

Table 4.4.3.3.9 - Area of the ship where the accident due to a fall from above or on the same levelhappened, for ship type involved - Period 2005 to 2011.

DataType of ship

TotalRoll on roll offServiceDry Liquid (passengers Passenger

unitFishing Pleas. Other /

bulk bulk and goods) vessels ships unknown

N. 51 57 229 123 123 276 21 135 1.014% 30,25% 30,39% 18,15% 19,90% 40,97% 50,19% 74,07% 34,12% 28,93%

N. 20 26 309 131 51 28 2 58 625% 11,73% 13,81% 24,50% 21,25% 17,01% 5,09% 7,41% 14,70% 17,81%

N. 35 34 187 107 53 41 - 69 526% 20,99% 18,23% 14,85% 17,37% 17,71% 7,36% - 17,32% 15,00%

N. 16 6 134 51 7 28 - 18 260% 9,26% 3,31% 10,64% 8,26% 2,43% 5,09% - 4,46% 7,41%

N. 9 18 132 48 4 9 - 23 243% 5,56% 9,39% 10,48% 7,76% 1,39% 1,70% - 5,77% 6,94%

N. 11 15 99 46 8 8 - 16 203% 6,79% 7,73% 7,84% 7,42% 2,78% 1,51% - 3,94% 5,78%

N. 7 10 33 27 5 28 1 18 130% 4,32% 5,52% 2,64% 4,38% 1,74% 5,09% 3,70% 4,46% 3,70%

N. - 4 19 24 21 20 - 18 105% - 2,21% 1,49% 3,88% 6,94% 3,58% - 4,46% 2,99%

N. 1 3 8 2 2 25 - 2 44% 0,62% 1,66% 0,66% 0,34% 0,69% 4,53% - 0,52% 1,24%

N. 1 - 6 9 5 8 - 5 35% 0,62% - 0,50% 1,52% 1,74% 1,51% - 1,31% 1,01%

N. 17 15 104 49 20 79 4 35 322% 9,88% 7,73% 8,25% 7,93% 6,60% 14,34% 14,81% 8,92% 9,19%

N. 168 188 1.259 616 299 551 28 396 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Main orsecondarydeck


Engine rooms


Accommodations

Galley / Canteen / Foodstore

Forecastle


Winches

Bridge

Other - unknown

Total


Areaofship

Other frequent injuries in case of accidents due to a fall are those related to sprains,distortions, luxations which are reported in 11.91% of the overall accidents for a fall,over the period 2005-2011; of this percentage, 34.58% of case occur on the main orsecondary deck, 20.15% in the entrances or in the passageways and on board stairs,and 14.43% in the engine rooms. The third mode of injury are fractures, infractions


86

Table 4.4.3.3.10 - Nature of injury as a consequence of a fall from above or on the same level, forinjured part - Years 2005 to 2011.

Data

Nature of injury

TotalConcussions,Sprains, Fractures,

Cut wounds, Internal Drowning,,bumps,

twists, infractions,with ruptures, hernia, Puncture intoxications

FrostbitesOther -

excoriations,luxations crushing

lacerations muscle distrac- wounds by gas, by food, Unknownbruises and bunps tions, lumbagos asphyxiations

N. 570 144 153 39 17 9 14 3 64 1.014% 56,25% 14,24% 15,06% 3,89% 1,64% 0,92% 1,33% 0,31% 6,35% 100,00%

N. 441 84 39 15 4 7 1 1 32 625% 70,55% 13,48% 6,32% 2,33% 0,67% 1,16% 0,17% 0,17% 5,16% 100,00%

N. 342 60 49 25 5 1 - 3 41 526% 65,02% 11,46% 9,29% 4,74% 0,99% 0,20% - 0,59% 7,71% 100,00%

N. 160 30 26 12 5 3 4 - 19 260% 61,60% 11,60% 10,00% 4,80% 2,00% 1,20% 1,60% - 7,20% 100,00%

N. 183 18 14 8 2 2 - 1 16 243% 75,21% 7,26% 5,56% 3,42% 0,85% 0,85% - 0,43% 6,41% 100,00%

N. 154 14 10 10 - 1 4 1 8 203% 75,90% 6,67% 5,13% 5,13% - 0,51% 2,05% 0,51% 4,10% 100,00%

N. 69 17 23 10 1 3 - - 7 130% 52,80% 12,80% 17,60% 8,00% 0,80% 2,40% - - 5,60% 100,00%

N. 46 20 24 7 - - - - 8 105% 43,56% 18,81% 22,77% 6,93% - - - - 7,92% 100,00%

N. 25 5 6 3 - - - - 4 44% 57,14% 11,90% 14,29% 7,14% - - - - 9,52% 100,00%

N. 19 3 8 3 - - - - 2 35% 52,94% 8,82% 23,53% 8,82% - - - - 5,88% 100,00%

N. 160 23 57 18 1 3 3 3 54 322% 49,68% 7,10% 17,74% 5,48% 0,32% 0,97% 0,97% 0,97% 16,77% 100,00%

N. 2.168 418 409 152 35 30 26 12 256 3.506% 61,83% 11,91% 11,68% 4,33% 1,01% 0,86% 0,74% 0,36% 7,29% 100,00%

Main orsecondarydeck


Engine rooms


Accommodations

Kitchen / Canteen / Foodstore

Forecastle


Winches

Bridge

Other - unknown

Total


Area ofship


87

Figure 4.4.3.3.5 - Injuries consequent to a fall from above or on the same level, divided according tothe five ship areas where accidents occur most frequently - Period 2005 to 2011.

Number of accidents

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Main

or

Main

or

secondary

deck

secondary

deck

Entrances,

passageways

passageways,

stairs

stairs

Engine rooms

g

Ho

lds

Depot

Ho

lds, Depot,

Garage

Garage

Accommodations

Conexc

Sprluxa

Fracrus

Cutlace

Inteherdist

Pun

Droasp

ncuscoria

rainsation

cturshin

t woerat

ernania,tract

nctu

owniphyx

ssioation

s, twns

res,ng

oundions

al ru mution

ure w

ing,xiatio

ons,ns, b

wists

infr

ds, ws an

pturuscles, lu

wou

intoons

bumbrui

s,

ract

withnd b

res,eumb

unds

oxics

mpsises

tions

hbum

bago

s

catio

s,s

s,

ps

os

ons

and crushing, which occur in 11.98% of accidents due to a fall over the same period;the latter are caused in 37.31% of cases by falling on the main or secondary deckand in 11.93% of cases by fall in the engine room.

The predominant occupation of the injured person at the time of the accident due toa fall is that on deck, a task performed by 36.29% of the injured persons fallen as aconsequence of a wave, by 25.89% of the injured persons for slipping and by 24.96%for falling due to other causes.Other most frequently performed occupations at the time of accident result the acti-vities carried out in catering or room service, performed by 19.19% of injured personsfallen for other causes and by 18.34% of injured people due to a fall for slipping; acci-dents occurred in the engine rooms, are in 17.74% of cases due to slipping and in15.73% of cases due to a fall for other causes.The most frequently performed activities at the time of an accident due to a fall over-board result, on the contrary, those connected with entering or leaving the ship andwith the home-ship route, carried out by 17.20% of the victims of a fall overboard(that is by 10.75% of victims in getting to or off the ship, and by 6.45% of the injuredpersons during their ship-home route); other activities are those related to the tasksperformed on the deck (12.90% of injured people) and those related to mooring andunberthing of ship (8.60%).

The age group between 45 and 54 years old appears as the mostly involved both intotal number of accidents on board and in those due to a fall from above or on thesame level. In particular, it is noted that the accidents due to a fall from above andon the same level mostly affect older age groups as opposed to what is resulting forthe overall number of accidents. The average age of the injured person in case of fallfrom above or on the same level has been growing over the period taken into consi-deration, from about 41 years old in 2005 to more than 43 years old in 2011. A pro-gressive aging of injured people over the period 2005-2011 is therefore confirmed.Furthermore, when we examine the accidents in relation to the occupational qualifi-cation of the injured people, it is observed that the comparison in the overall accidentdistribution with that of the accidents occurred as a consequence of a fall from aboveor on the same level does not show relevant differences in the distinction of employ-ment areas and occupational qualification of the injured persons: in both case, almo-st half of the injured people carry out tasks on the deck and almost a quarter of themperform engine-related tasks


88

Worker’s occupation Fall on Fall on Fall onFall over Totalat time Data board - for board - other board - for

boardof accident slipping causes wave

N. 663 180 47 13 902% 25,89% 24,96% 36,29% 12,90% 25,73%

N. 470 138 18 4 630% 18,34% 19,19% 13,71% 4,30% 17,96%

N. 454 113 9 3 580% 17,74% 15,73% 7,26% 3,23% 16,54%

N. 240 49 12 17 318% 9,37% 6,78% 9,68% 17,20% 9,07%

N. 117 48 10 4 180% 4,59% 6,64% 8,06% 4,30% 5,13%

N. 131 30 8 6 176% 5,11% 4,18% 6,45% 6,45% 5,01%

N. 102 37 4 8 152% 3,98% 5,19% 3,23% 8,60% 4,33%

N. 42 9 5 2 58% 1,62% 1,30% 4,03% 2,15% 1,66%

N. 38 7 - 1 47% 1,50% 1,01% - 1,08% 1,33%

N. 303 108 15 39 465% 11,85% 15,01% 11,29% 39,79% 13,25%

N. 2.560 720 129 97 3.506% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Activity on deck

Room/catering activity

Engine rooms

Ship access or home-ship route

At rest

Working equipment employment

Mooring / unberthing operations

Winch / lifting means operations

Cleaning and washing tasks

Other - unknown

Totale

Table 4.4.3.3.11 - Fall from above, distinguished for injured person’s occupation at time of acci-dent - Years 2005 to 2011.

.


89

Figure 4.4.3.3.6 - Composition of the victims according to their occupational qualification, all injuries and for fall from above and on the same level - Years 2005 to 2011.

Table 4.4.3.3.12 - Occupational level of the persons injured as a consequence of a fall from aboveor on the same level, for fall type - Years 2005 to 2011.

Occupational Fall on Fall on Fall onFall over Totalcategory board - for board - other board - for

boardslipping causes wave

Master 228 47 14 22 310Chief mate 92 32 1 3 129Assistant deck officer (chief mate) 30 11 1 2 45Deck officer 92 45 6 4 148Assistant deck officer 1 - 1 - 2Deck crew member 774 218 50 29 1.071Total deck crew members 1.218 353 73 60 1.704Engineer officer 275 54 15 1 345Assistant engineer officer 24 1 - - 25Engineer officer 196 70 6 7 280Assistant engineer officer 11 1 - - 12Engine crew member 162 33 8 3 207Engineer crew Total 669 159 29 11 869Polyvalent crew 442 138 14 5 598Health and medical crew 128 37 8 - 174Catering crew 24 7 - - 31Galley crew 10 3 - - 14Harbour’s person in charge - 1 - 3 4Passenger 1 3 2 14 20Other / unknown 69 18 3 3 92Grand total 2.560 720 129 97 3.506

Numero


Deck crew49,37%

Other -Unkown4,66%

Polyvalentcrew

0,91%

Galley crew

5,78%

Accomodation crew15,11%

Enginecrew

24,20%

Deck crew48,61%

Other -Unkown3,70%

Polyvalentcrew

0,89% Galley crew4,95%


All accidents Accidents due to a fall from above or on the same level

Enginecrew

24,78%


90

Figure 4.4.3.3.7 - Occupational category of people injured as a consequence of a fall from aboveor on the same level, for service type on board - Years 2005 to 2011.

Deck crew

In particular, the occupational category that is mostly affected by accidents due to afall from above or on the same level appears that of deck crew members, whichalone is 30.56% of the accidents caused by fall; other occupational categories repre-sentative of the persons injured in consequence of a fall from above and on the samelevel are room service crew (17.07% of accidents due to a fall) and engineer officers(9.84% of accidents due to a fall).

4.4.3.4 Analysis of severe and very severe accidents

In relation to the severity of accidents that are a consequence of a fall from above oron the same level, see the data referred to in the previous paragraph 4.2.3.In the table 4.4.3.4.1 and related figure 4.4.3.4.1 below, it is clearly shown, however,that the injury that is a consequence of an overboard fall results in more adverseafter-effects for the victim than what happens in case of accidents caused by othertypes of fall. In fact, over the period 2005-2011 18.28% of accidents caused by an

Deckhand62,86%

Assistantdeck

secondofficer

Decksecondofficer Assistant

deck officer2,62%

Deckofficer7,56%

Master18,17%

Other crew on board

Galley crew

21,25%


Medicalcrew

1,65%

Polyvalentcrew

3,82%

Engineer crew

Engineercrewmember

23,80%

Assistantengineersecondofficer1,44%

Engineersecondofficer

32,18%

Assistantengineer

officer2,87%

Engineerofficier39,71%

overboard fall caused the death of the victim. This means that every 100 injured per-sons, 18 cases are fatal. On the contrary, the person injured in consequence of a fallcaused by a wave has a greater chance of being hit by small consequences(20.97%) as compared to people injured for other types of fall.


91

Causes of the SlightSevere Totalaccident Data consequences

consequencesDeath Unknown

(< 24h)

N. 346 2.160 9 45 2.560% 13,51% 84,37% 0,37% 1,75% 100,00%

N. 92 620 1 6 720% 12,84% 86,15% 0,14% 0,87% 100,00%

N. 27 100 - 2 129% 20,97% 77,42% - 1,61% 100,00%

N. 15 63 18 1 97% 15,05% 65,59% 18,28% 1,08% 100,00%

N. 480 2.944 28 54 3.506% 13,69% 83,97% 0,80% 1,54% 100,00%

Fall on board - slipping

Fall on board - other causes

Fall on board - for wave

Fall overboard

Total


Table 4.4.3.4.1 - Severity of consequences due to a fall from above or on the same level, for type offall - Period 2005 to 2011.

Figure 4.4.3.4.1 - Percentage distribution of accidents consequent to a fall from above or on thesame level, for consequence severity and type of fall - Years 2005 to 2011.

Nb

fid

tNumber of accidents

2

4

6

8

10

0,

20,

40,

60,

80,

00,

00%

00%

00%

00%

00%

00%

%

%

%

%

%

%

FFallbyl ony sl

n boippoarding

d - Faotall other

n br ca

oarause

rd -es

Faall obyon by w

boawave

ard e

- FFall oveer bboard

Slight consequences (<24h) Severe consequences Death Not known


92

Ship typeSlight

Severe TotalData consequencesconsequences

Death Unknown(< 24h)

N. 41 125 1 2 168% 24,07% 74,07% 0,62% 1,23% 100,00%

N. 33 152 - 3 188% 17,68% 80,66% - 1,66% 100,00%

N. 161 1.070 7 21 1.259% 12,79% 84,98% 0,58% 1,65% 100,00%

N. 100 506 2 8 616% 16,19% 82,12% 0,34% 1,35% 100,00%

N. 38 258 2 1 299% 12,85% 86,11% 0,69% 0,35% 100,00%

N. 49 495 6 1 551% 8,87% 89,81% 1,13% 0,19% 100,00%

N. 3 19 6 - 28% 11,11% 66,67% 22,22% - 100,00%

N. 55 320 3 18 396% 13,91% 80,84% 0,79% 4,46% 100,00%

N. 480 2.944 28 54 3.506% 13,69% 83,97% 0,80% 1,54% 100,00%

Dry bulk

Liquid bulk

Roll on roll off (passengers and goods

Passenger transport

Service units

Fishing vessels

Recreational ships

Other / unknown

Total


Table 4.4.3.4.2 - Consequence severity of fall from above or on the same level, for ship type onwhich the injuring event occurred - Years 2005-2011.

As we have seen before, the ship category on which accidents due to fall from aboveand on the same level occur more frequently is that of passenger ferries and/or pas-sengers and goods ships. In particular, we observe that the ferries for passenger andpassenger/goods transport are also the ship category on which the major number ofdeaths occurred as a consequence of falling from above or on the same level evenif in percentage terms the incidence of these fatal cases is very low. It is different,however, for accidents occurring on pleasure crafts which in as high as 22.2% ofcases have fatal consequences.

4.5 Recurrent cases

From the analysis in so far carried out, it was possible to identify the causal factorsand working conditions that most frequently provoke injuries to seafarers and, some-times to passengers, on ships flying the Italian flag or operating in national territorialwaters. The result is that every 100 maritime workers who experience an injury on

board a ship, for almost 53 of them the accident is caused by a fall to a lower levelor on the same level, of which 38 are a consequence of slipping. In particular, formore than 20 cases among the latter, the fall happened in consequence of slippingon a passenger or passenger/goods transport. Of those 53 accidents, 11 occurredin the waters bordering Sicily and almost 9 in those bordering Liguria; in 56% ofcases while the ship was moored. As regards the environmental conditions, the accidents happen mainly in favourablesea and weather conditions in more than three quarters of cases caused by fall fromabove or on the same level, and amongst these for 39 out of 53 injured persons as aconsequence of a fall. Furthermore, for almost half of cases, the accident due to a falloccurs in artificial lighting, that is, for almost 25 cases out of 53 victims experience afall, and for 22 of them the accident happens in bright light conditions. Almost a third (30.24%) of the people injured for a fall from above belongs to theoccupational category of ordinary seamen (seamen, ship-boy, etc.) engaged in deckactivities in 46% of cases, and in 10.92% during embarkation or disembarkation.17.25% of accidents for slipping, on the contrary, involve room service crew (workingon ships for the transport of passenger and passenger/goods), in 71% of cases whilethey carry on room or catering duties. Finally, 10.75% of accidents due to slipping involves engineer officers, in 60% of caseswhile they are carrying on their activities in the engine rooms. As we have seen before,the most frequently suffered injury due to slip and fall is bump or concussion. The injury reported as a consequence of a fall from above or on the same level cau-ses, normally, less fatal consequences than any other types of maritime accident,except for the injury caused by falling overboard, for all the units on which the eventoccurred, in particular on pleasure units where the death of the crew member in char-ge of unit operation increases the death index up to 22.2% of the overall accidentsdue to slip and fall on this type of craft.Considering the above explanation, we proceed to a list of some typical accidentcases due to slip and fall from above and on the same level, deducted from the sum-mary or formal investigations carried out by maritime authorities, showing the mostrecurrent or important accident dynamics from the analysis made.

4.5.1 Stumbling on structures and fall on the same level

This injury usually occurs when the person stumbles on structures and protrudingequipments of the ship or on working appointments; it often involves maritimeworkers belonging to deck crew. Weather and sea conditions are usually good andit may happen that the person stumbles mainly in artificial light.In the accident form, it is indicated as “slip and fall” or “fall for other causes” and isdetermined by stumbling on wedges, coamings, ropes, fishing appointments, orentrance steps.The most frequent injury produced by this type of accident is the concussion, bruise


93

or fracture of the lower limbs and the head. Sometimes, when the appointment ismoving, the injured worker gets hitched on and is thrown overboard, with very seve-re or fatal consequences.Usually, the investigation made by the maritime Authorities gives the responsibility ofthe accident to the injured person’s carelessness / lack of attention.

4.5.2 Slipping or stumbling on stairways and ladders and fall from height

The injured person loses his balance while going down or going up the stairs or aladder, while slipping or stumbling on a step. Weather, sea conditions and visibilityare usually good, with bright light or artificial lighting.The injured worker generally belongs to deck crew roles, or galley and room service;he reports often concussions, bruises and excoriations to the lower limbs and theupper part of the trunk.The investigation carried on by the maritime Authorities usually attributes a liability foraccident without fault.

4.5.3 Slip and fall on the same level on wet or oily floor

The accident occurs when someone slips on a wet or oily floor on the deck, becau-se of adverse sea and weather conditions or during washing operations, or falls onan oily floor during activities performed in the engine rooms.The concerned personnel belong in the first case to deck crew, usually deployed asgeneral seamen on deck; in the latter they belong to engine room crew.The most frequently experienced injury of this type of accident is concussion, bruiseor fracture, to the lower limbs or to the upper part of the trunk.The injured person often declares that he lost his balance or slipped.In the majority of events, the Maritime Authorities’ investigation attributes a liability foraccident without fault.

4.5.4 Fall overboard while acceding or descending from the ship

Usually this type of accident occurs when the gangway to the embarkation is not usedto enter on or to descend off board, that is when the victim, to go up on the unit or togo down passes on temporary crosspieces, or jumps from the ship onto the bank,despite the fact that a Security Plan is provided for in the unit and it lays down that theaccess to the ship must be exclusively through a gangway.Also in this case, the accident occurs generally when weather conditions are goodand the light is bright.The most frequently reported injuries are concussions, bumps and excoriations, as


94

well as fractures, infractions and crushing concerning lower limbs, thorax, ribs, backand backbone in most cases.The Maritime Authorities’ investigation attributes the responsibility of the accident tothe victim’s carelessness, negligence, imprudence and non-compliance with therules laid down.

4.5.5 Fall overboard from small pleasure boat

Generally, in small scale pleasure boats, the fall into sea of a crew member or a pas-senger is caused by a sudden acceleration or sudden turn of the unit due to speed,or because the boat is rolling in consequence of an unexpected or odd wave cau-sed by another unit going fast, or for adverse weather conditions.From the records it emerges that in this type of accident, the position of the injuredperson before falling overboard was usually unsafe. Moreover, the injured person(generally at the command of the pleasure boat or in charge of the operations ondeck, sometimes present as a passenger) is not wearing the life-jacket and, in caseof conductor’s fall, the craft is not provided with an automatic turn-off system, bymeans of a security cable that the conductor may turn off. In falling into sea, the injured person is frequently injured by the propeller and reportsconcussions, bruises, excoriations, fractures, infractions and crushing concerning inmost cases the lower limbs, the thorax, the ribs, the back and the backbone.Maritime Authorities usually attribute the responsibility of the accident to the conduc-tor’s carelessness or to non-compliance with the unit’s safety rules.

4.6 Analysis of the data harmonised with reference to real cases (appropriately made anonymous).

In order to better understand the different components that generally determine theinjuries caused by falling from above or on the same ground, some of the most seve-re and recurrent cases have been studied and analysed, identifying, for the purpo-ses of this research, the most representative accidents.It is possible to see the extracts of some real cases of accidents caused by fallingfrom above or on the same level, deducted from summary or formal investigationsmade by Maritime Authorities. The event description has been purposefully left ingeneral terms in order to maintain the privacy of the persons concerned.

4.6.1 Fall in the engine room

During a winter morning, aboard an Italian tanker ship navigating in internationalwaters, the person at the engine in charge of the cleaning operations slipped in theengine room while washing the floor to remove some oil spots.


95

In slipping, the worker bumped with his right foot into some water pipes and fellover; the impact of his foot on the pipes provoked a metacarpal sprain with adjunctfracture of the IV phalanx. Since the injured worker was alone in the engine room,rescue was not timely but arrived after a while.From the investigation it emerged that the working environment was well lightedand the floor had been cleaned up and that the worker had just started hisshiftwork; the responsibility of the accident was attributed to the worker’s careles-sness in moving around on the wet floor.

4.6.2 Fall overboard

During a fishing trip in coastal waters at early morning, a seaman of a fishing ship fellinto the water while he was working astern to position the steel roller track with thefinal nets cable to drop into the sea. While he was working he did not realize he wasbeing caught in a tangle of cables that, at the time he was dropping the nets, shothim out overboard.Immediately, his fellow workers tried to pull the rope on board, but the weight of thepurse seine’s lead line dragged him deep, causing him to drown.The corpse was eventually recovered through the winch onboard.The investigation assessed that the operations were carried out in conformity with theapproved security plan, and therefore required the updating in order to include, in therisk assessment, every stage of the working activity, and concluded that the accidentwas to be attributed to a poor evaluation of the risks during the fishing operationinvolving the drop of the surrounding net with purse line.Moreover, the Maritime Authority recommended the appropriate use of personalprotection tools and the necessity of a specific training of the crew, also with apermanent training aimed at the solution of both normal and emergency situations.

4.6.3 Fall in the galley

Around midday of a day in March, on an Italian tanker ship navigating in internatio-nal waters, a chef fell over because the ship was rolling hard; the man was closingthe door of the galley. The worker tried to grip the door knob but missed it and hit vio-lently his right hip on the floor; he reported traumas and fractures causing him an ina-bility to work of more than six months.The accident cause was attributed to bad weather conditions, since during the inve-stigation it was assessed that the maritime had complied with the current provisionsconcerning safety at work.


96

4.6.4 Fall overboard on a pleasure craft

In the early afternoon of a summer day, in good weather conditions, a small pleasu-re craft on rent was cruising on coastal waters of a well known touristic area. Aboardthere were the conductor and three passengers.During the navigation, the craft was surpassed by a big boat that provoked, due toits high speed, a big wave, causing the rolling and pitching of the small craft.One of the passengers who was sitting precariously on the side, fell into water, inconsequence of the sudden rolling of the boat and hit his right leg against the pro-peller; he reported a deep and extended injury.The victim was rescued and aided with on board aids and subsequently embarkedon the Coast Guard’s cutter called to rescue.The Maritime Authority’s investigation attributed the liability of the accident to theinexperience of the conductor in managing the craft and also to a fault to accommo-date appropriately and safely the passengers onboard.

5. Final analysis and proposals

As we have stressed in the previous paragraphs, the falls from above and on thesame level represent more than a half of the entire number of accidents recorded onItalian ships. Of these, about 60% are a consequence of slipping and falling on thesame level, while the remaining 40% is a consequence of falling from above which,though, in terms of compensated days, represent approximately a half of what glo-bally granted for falls in general.Moreover, in reference to the incidence on falls, there are no particular differencesbetween the events in harbour and those in the course of navigation, neither is par-ticularly relevant on “major” ships the presence of waves provoked by adverseweather conditions.In relation to the accident severity, it should be anyway observed that - from ageneral point of view - only a small percentage of the accidents that are a conse-quence of fall may be classified as severe or very severe. In fact, a half of suchaccidents approximately, from a general point of view, have no consequenceswhilst a further 40% causes after-effects of slight or medium severity with an ina-bility below 15%.However, if we analyse the severity of the consequences of falling in relation to theship type on which the accidents happened, it emerges that the “minor” units (plea-sure crafts and small-scale fishing vessels) have different rates if compared to theabove general data, since they present a severity index in percentage different fromthe average one. In fact, a relevant increment in the falls into sea is recorded (whichunfortunately are sometimes fatal for the victim) in “small scale” ship types; in 2007this category recorded a mortality index as much as 9% (INAIL data); furthermore, analarming level has been recorded in the mortality index in pleasure crafts, with a per-


97

centage well above 22% of fatal accidents caused by falling from above or on thesame level (MIT data and Harbourmaster’s Office).In order to understand the causes of the accidents due to falls and to identify useful pro-posals to reduce both severe injuries and the most recurrent ones, it is therefore crucialto distinguish, as set out in the following paragraphs, between “major” ships (passengerships, bulk carrier ships, etc.), special ships (tug and towing vessels, Supply Vessels,etc.) and “minor” ships, including here pleasure crafts and small-scale fishing vessels.

5.1 An analysis of the most severe cases and recurrent ones with an identification of possible causes

In the light of the previous paragraph, it is useful to distinguish between causeswhich are consequences of falls occurred on “major” ships and falls occurred onpleasure crafts and small-scale fishing vessels.In particular, it is noted that the falls from above represent on passenger ships the66.9% of falls, generally resulting as prevalent also on cargo ships and special ships(tug and towing vessels, supply vessels, etc.) although in the latter categories, theincidence of slip and fall on the same level are comparable with that of the falls fromabove. Such circumstance, as it is inferable also by the anonymous cases referredto in paragraph 4.7, seems to be justified by the fact that passenger ships include anumber of stairways and ladders connecting external decks which are often wet dueto sea water and weather conditions. A similar feature is present for cargo ships andfor those ships belonging to “special” categories which, on the contrary, thoughhaving less decks and, therefore, less stairways as compared to the passengerships, have sometimes rope ladders to access rooms or more dangerous inclina-tions, as well as more obstacles (coamings, pipes, etc.) present on decks. In relationto the consequences of falling in such ship types, it is noted that, as we have saidbefore, such accidents are generally medium severe, entailing, for more than 60% ofcases, bruises, excoriations and bumps (INAIL data) which probably may be redu-ced or, in at least decreased, in case the obstacles and hazards were appropriatelyindicated and the crew embarked wore the appropriate personal protection outfit.In relation to “major” ships, it is also noted that accidents that are consequence of fal-ling in general, provoking fractures and crushing, result as rather recurrent and therefo-re important, as we have stressed in the case referred to in paragraph 4.7.1, from whichit can be deducted that the worker reported a fracture of a foot phalanx due to a hitagainst a pipe in the engine room. From this dynamics, properly chosen because it isrepresentative of different reported cases, we assume that the fracture could havebeen avoided if the worker had worn accident prevention shoes which, being providedwith a steel reinforced shoe tip, would have protected him against the pipe. In relation to “minor” units, it is on the contrary noted that slip and fall, and stumbleand fall on the same level are, differently from what happens on “major” ships, themost recurrent cases, resulting as being equal to about 90% of cases recorded for


98

small-scale fishing vessels (INAIL data) and pleasure crafts. In 82.14% of cases, theaccident implies a fall into water (MIT data). It should be observed that in 22.2% ofcases, the accidents which are consequences of fall in general, in pleasure crafts aresusceptible of being fatal for the victim who falls into water with modes similar, evenif generally less lucky, to those outlined in paragraph 4.7.4.As regards the mode of falling into water on fishing vessels and pleasure crafts, it hasto be observed that in both the cases reported in paragraphs 4.7.2 and 4.7.4, whichhave been chosen as exemplary of the most recurrent modes, it is inferred that thecrew was poorly prepared to address the risks related respectively to hauling downthe nets and craft sailing and to the intervention procedures in emergency situations.In relation to the accident type which is consequence of fall, it is noted that on“minor” units, concussions, bruises and excoriations are the most recurrent injurieswith an incidence of 61.6% (MIT data). It is therefore considered that, in such regard,this kind of accidents can be at least reduced if only the crew onboard wore the hel-met and also the appropriate personal accident-prevention outfits which would avoidor, at least, mitigate the above mentioned injuries.Finally, it results quite strange that most part of the injuries reported on “minor” shipsoccur in good weather conditions and in well lighted spaces with artificial or brightlight; it may be assumed that they are consequence of poor attention, carelessnessand poor training of the crew just as, for example, it was found in the cases that arerecurrent in pleasure crafts.

5.2 A comparison between the trend of accidents recorded over the yearsand the effects of the entry into force of specific regulations

As it may be observed in the diagrams on the accident trends both in INAIL and MITdatabanks, a steady decrease was recorded from 2007 onward, of accidents that inless than five years were reduced of a third approximately, from 1488 cases in 2007to 988 cases in 2011 (INAIL data).It is assumed that such circumstance may be casual because the decreasing trendis rather steady. For such reason, the reduction in accidents may be put into relationwith the entry in force of the Regulation n. 336/2006/EC of 14 February 2006 whichentailed the implementation of the “International Code of Safety Management” thathas been extended, from 24 March 2008, also to cargo and passenger ships towhich the ISM Code did not apply. This Regulation provides for the obligation ofships and management companies to develop a Safety Management System (SMS)providing for procedures to improve the safety on board, in addition to managing theemergencies. Another important factor related to the implementation of the SMS isthat, amongst the basic principles of this management system, there is the ongoinganalysis of casualties and accidents occurring during the ship’s operations. Thisallows the company that manage the ship for the modification of management pro-cedures both of the ship and of the same Company.


99

Needless to say that the implementation of such a System, particularly effective inthat it is supervised by Port State Control (PSC) by officers belonging to different FlagStates, appears to be particularly effective also because it not only intervenes onspecific issues emerged in ship operations but it contributes in particular to modify,over time, the culture of Security both of maritime workers signed on and ofemployees on land in charge of recruiting and training of crew members.

5.3 Some proposals aimed at reducing the accidents that are consequenceof fall from above and on the same level also in the light of current lawsat national and international level

From the analysis of the international regulations and guidelines, in relation to themaritime casualties and accidents on ships, it is observed that the approach to suchproblems is changing much in that, as also stressed in Chapter 1 of this Research,we are moving from a risk “assessment” to a risk “management”. According to whatis provided for in the latest IACS Guidelines of June 2012 the risk should be reducedat a level that is “as low as is reasonably practicable” (acronym ALARP). In such away, the hazardousness of some of the activities carried out on board ships is impli-citly recognized, even if they cannot be completely eliminated; the danger should,anyway, be kept under control in order to avoid more severe consequences, as thosesusceptible to become lethal or provoke severe and invalidating injuries.It is therefore assumed that, in line with the international provisions, the strategy tobe adopted in order to reduce the accidents is to implement and extend the proce-dures on the evaluation and the management of risks also to those ships type, suchas pleasure crafts, fish catching vessels and small-scale fishing vessels - for which,even if they are subject to the prescriptions of legislative Decree n. 271/99, specificprocedures such as those required in the Regulation n. 336/2006EC of 15 February2006 are not provided. We have seen, in fact, that after the introduction of the abovementioned Regulation, a noteworthy reduction of the accidents was recorded, withthe exception of those ship types such as pleasure crafts and the small-scale ves-sels which were excluded from it. Another aspect emerging from the analysis of recurrent accidents regards, in thecases where the ship is subject to the “International Code of Safety management”, amissing or poor occupational training of maritime crew in addition to a poor reviewof the “safety plans”. The latter often become handbooks to be maintained on boardand are often not given the appropriate attention. In fact, the documents have to beperiodically updated on the basis of recurrent meetings on prevention and protectionon board, in any case provided for in the Article 14 of legislative Decree n. 271/2009,in addition to the Recommendations of the Maritime Authorities and the MIT. In refe-rence to this, it is important to keep the awareness of the crew in charge of ship unitshigh in order that the ship-owner and the crew members be able to make compari-sons between the actual management of safety on board and the analysis of the


100

accidents occurred. The employer’s involvement is useful to identify any measuresof intervention to improve the prevention of injuries, the verification of the appropria-teness of adopted personal protection devices and the subsequent provision of anychanges to the procedures provided for in the Safety Management Handbook’sreview.On the other hand, in relation to the most recurrent accidents recorded in consequen-ce of a fall on “major” ships, it is observed that in many cases the accidents are cau-sed by the use of work outfits that are not appropriate to the activities being carried outat the time of accident. It will be therefore necessary to intervene on workers’ aware-ness concerning the risks they run in case they are not wearing the Personal ProtectionDevices correctly, while the Responsible in charge of security should also intensify theverifications on board. Furthermore, it would be desirable, and also necessary, thatsome specific regulations of reference be issued, aimed at establishing minimum stan-dards to be complied with for the Personal Protection Devices used in maritime work.In particular, let’s think of life jackets that originally were studied and manufactured asnormal Personal Protection devices during current working tasks as sometimes it wasrequested in some Safety Management Handbooks concerning specific activities. Infact, considering that the main function of life jackets is to protect the shipwrecked fromdrowning, life jackets have been realized that ensure a high body buoyancy and sup-port of the shipwrecked head out of water but which result cumbersome; they can betherefore somehow a hindrance if used during routine working activities. Let’s think, forexample, to the difficulty for a fisherman in a small fishing vessel, to haul down or reco-ver the nets while wearing a tarpaulin and a life jacket; the latter is, moreover, equippedwith laces and belts that may easily get caught in winches and nets. It would be, the-refore, appropriate to propose life jackets more adapted to meet the requirementsimposed by working activities of people on ships, and thus less cumbersome and easyto be worn, as for example air life jackets such as those in the following images; theyfeature devices apt to simplify their use during work (easy to open and close hooks, nolaces, etc.).


101

Traditional life jacket Air life jacket


102

The adoption of this type of life jackets may in particular foster the utilization of thePersonal Protection Devices which, being of easy and comfortable use, would bemore easily worn during the current working activities and therefore would representa useful obstacle to the danger of drowning, consequent to the injuries caused bystumbling and/or slipping and fall overboard.In relation to slipping-related falls, which are predominant as compared to the diffe-rent ship types, it should be observed that, even if we do not have specific statisticaldata in the questionnaires included in the databanks analysed, such injuries aresurely affected by the adherence of the shoes used by maritime workers with the shipdeck surface; unfortunately, the shoes currently used are not studied for such a spe-cific job as that carried on board ships. On the contrary, the shoes currently used asPersonal Protection Devices on ships are those with a reinforced tip, antistatic andbreak-in safe sole such as those in the following image.

Sometimes the Safety Management Handbooks do not provide for the use of spe-cial shoes that, in addition to the above mentioned features that are necessary toprotect the feet from hits caused by routine activities carried out in heavy industry,are also of the SRA/SRB/SRC type, that is, provided with a high resistance to slip-ping as laid down in EN ISO 20344:2004 and ISO 13287:2012 regulations. In par-ticular, it is observed that the ISO 13287:2012 regulation requires the tests thatshoes must pass on different wet surfaces, although liquids are not completelyrepresentative of the actual conditions of the deck of a ship wet with salted water.It would be therefore advisable to provide for specific standards aimed at iden-tifying, and therefore characterizing, the tests that shoes must pass in order toadopt them on ships as Personal Protection Devices.Similarly, the anti-slip treatment of the main or upper decks exposed to the sea

Traditional sole in accident-preventionshoe

Example of slide-safe sole SRC of accident-prevention shoes


103

should be imposed, for example painting the open decks with paintings rich insand, which is not currently defined by specific standards; they are left to the goodpractices in the management of the ship, being in some cases only suggested inthe procedure handbooks prepared by the Management companies according tothe Safety Management System (SMS) or required by some renters. In consequen-ce of such a treatment, the contact between shoe and deck surface would bemuch safer even in presence of water, making the workers moving on externaldecks in a much safer way even in adverse weather conditions.As regards the stumbling-related accidents, it is observed that there are no availa-ble elements to allow for a specific analysis of the causes that provoked this typeof accident, even if it is apparent that the causes are to be found in the presenceof the big obstacles present on a ship such as, for example, pipes, valves andequipment of any kind in addition to structural elements such as coamings andhatch coamings which have to meet some specific international requirements inorder to result as obstacles, especially to prevent water from entering the hull. Alsoin this case, the regulation was provided for to safeguard human life at sea, tryingto avoid the ship from wrecking but without putting particular attention to the con-sequences that these choices may provoke on the risks met by the crew on boardduring their work. All that said, it is assumed that, however, the results of thisresearch could make us claim that fall and slipping and should never be disregar-ded; for this reason it is necessary to ask Designers, Naval Building Sites andClassification Organisms to study solutions which - in compliance with the mini-mum criteria required by international regulations and laws, including theInternational Convention for the Safeguard of Human Life at Sea (SOLAS) and theLoad Line Convention - allow to maintain the passage areas free from obstacles.For example, it could be required that, at least for the open decks over the upperdeck, the use of flush-deck coamings to substitute the traditional ones with rims of600 mm as those shown in the following images.

Traditional hatchway coaming Hatchway with flush-deck coaming


104

In the cases where it is not possible to eliminate or moving from passage ways someof the appointments elements that are obstacles, it will be anyway necessary tosignal them with an appropriate accident prevention signaling. In relation to the falls from above, it is remarked that the most recurrent injuries arethose consequent to a fall from stairs or ladders, for which it is obviously assumedthat both the structural shape and the maintenance conditions of stairs and laddersmay influence, even dramatically, the accident event. It is therefore assumed that itis necessary, in the Safety Management Handbooks, to provide for specific procedu-res of maintenance and periodic control of stairways and ladders, in order to elimi-nate any presence of slipping materials from the steps, while signalling the uprightmembers between two stair treads and the edge, so as to avoid the danger of stum-bling on them, as in the examples shown in the following images.

From a structural point of view, it is stressed that the construction of stairways innaval scope is disciplined by the regulations issued by the Classification Organismproviding for escape routes, that are the ones normally employed to connect the dif-ferent ship decks, inclinations not above 70° and with a step height lower or equal to300 mm. Regarding that, it is observed that a stairway with such feature requires,especially downhill, a poor surface for foot support, that results as being almost one

Example of a stairway with indication of the handrail and of the first and last step as well


105

Example of stairway with 70° inclination

third of what is normally useful to allow for a stable position, as it is clearly shown inthe following scheme

It is self evident that in the case it was necessary to build a stairway with a lower incli-nation, for example with a 45° incline as that in the following schemes, a more stablesupport surface for the foot would be obtained, both for going up and down, with aclear improvement of safety conditions and possible reduction of accidents due tofall from above or caused by stumbling.

Example of a stairway with 45° inclination


106

Going down in the hold

Ladder with cage-like climbing on the mast

Concerning, on the other side, the stairways to access boarding and serviceareas such as, for example, holds and masts, the regulations permit the use ofvertical ladders or rung ladders such as those shown in the following images.These ladders entail a risk of falling from height, more than the risk of stumblingor slipping, because their use implies the employment of feet and handstogether. In this case, the use of accident prevention shoes, outfits and glovesin addition to the safety belt is crucial; the latter will have to be always providedfor in the Safety Management Handbooks and therefore used by the personnelon board.

From the analysis of most recurrent acci-dents, it is furthermore emerged that thecrew members on board were not pro-perly trained and ready to manage emer-gency situations, especially in severecases. In fact, the majority of fatal cases,consequent to a fall from above or on the same level, occurred upon a fall overboard and the crew was not able to rescuethe injured person on time.It is therefore assumed that, to contrast such a risk, it would be necessary to provi-de for appropriate training sessions which simulate, in a realistic and possiblyunplanned way, a fall and the subsequent rescue of the “man-overboard” so as tomake the actions to employ in such circumstances automatic and timely.From a structural point of view, it may be useful to intervene on the regulations esta-blishing minimum standards for realizing the bulwarks and the bulwark stays of theships.


107

Size features of the bulwark stays in function of the ship type

PLEASURE CRAFTS

SMALL FISHING VESSELS

MAJOR SHIPS AND “FISH-CATCHINGVESSELS” > 24m”

In particular, it is noted that the current regulations in force provide for, in function ofthe ship type as shown in the following schemes, some substantial differences espe-cially in the bulwark stanchion minimum height and, only for major ships, of the inter-vals of bulwark stays while keeping constant the minimum heights of deck cap stays.

When we observe the bulwark stays features shown in the scheme, it is noted that inthese cases the minimum height is, respectively, equal to 600mm for pleasure craftsand 800mm for small-scale fishing vessels as opposed to a minimum height of at leastone metre for any other ship. Such factor is deemed as basic to understand the acci-dents caused by a fall overboard, which, as we have seen, is relevant and with severeconsequences in case of accidents on pleasure crafts and small-scale fishing vessels,that is exactly on those units in which the bulwark stays are lower than those in major


108

ships, on which the falls overboard due to a fall from above or on the same level arefew.In the light of what we noted, it is therefore intuitive that raising the bulwarks and thebulwark stays also on pleasure crafts and small-scale fishing vessels, would be avaluable obstacle against the possibility of falling overboard, although it would have acertain visual impact on pleasure boats and be a hindrance during fish-catching ope-rations. In fact, on small fishing vessels, the activity is sometimes carried on by leaningover or toward the water. In any case, a technical solution like this could dramaticallyreduce this type of accidents that, as we have said, produce on such sea-going unitssevere consequences, and therefore require new solutions to be studied. In particular,in the case of pleasure crafts, the bulwark could be raised, persuading designers, inadopting new regulations which could also be winning from an insurance point of view,to implement innovative and aesthetically pleasant solutions. On fishing vessels,instead, a high bulwark could be provided with the exception of the spots devoted tothe fishing activities; in these spots it should be anyway recommended the use of lifejackets and safety belts. Still in relation with overboard falls which, on pleasure crafts and small-scale fishingvessels, often imply the death of the injured person, it is noted that the uniforms wornby seafarers are particularly influential because they may be an obstacle and a load incase of swimming to get closer and back into the ship. Some examples of this type ofobstacle are garments like wool jackets and pullovers which, designed to keep thebody warm in open air, become very heavy if soaked. Similarly, as regards accidentprevention shoes normally used on board, they do not always have soles appropriateto a wet deck and are also very heavy and in some cases with no quick-release hook.For such reason, in case the worker should fall into water, the shoes would be anotherload hard to break free from in the case where such Personal Protection Devices wouldnot be provided with a quick-release hook like those in the images.

Accident prevention shoes with no quick release Accident prevention shoes with quick-release hook

A further remark is still to be done for those small-scale boats, such as those descri-bed above. In this type of units, the crew include only one member who, if he to stum-bles and falls into the sea, should be able to get back to the ship, climbing up theboat all alone - something that can be done insofar as the crafts or vessel had anautomatic turnoff system of the engine as well as a rescue ladder operated by theshipwrecked person himself. In conclusion, it should be stressed that solutions and suggestions of technical natu-re which are proposed in this paragraph are in part drawn from an empirical analy-sis of places and customs generally observed shipboard, comparing them with thestatistical data extracted from the databanks of INAIL Navigation Sector and the MIT- Ministry of Transports, in which information are collected together with the accidentsreports and the results of the investigations carried out by Harbourmaster’s Offices;these sometimes do not contain useful details to identify the causes that provokedthe accident. It would be very useful, in order to identify and develop further and bet-ter targeted proposals, to enrich the accident reporting questionnaires used by theINAIL and those used by Harbourmasters’ Offices with new information so as tofocus in the utmost precision the on casualty/accident and its causes.


109

Annex

The variables and their harmonization

The statistical data analysed by the INAIL are referring to the accidents occurred toseafarers over the period 2004-2011 with an in depth analysis of the costs, the con-sequences and the modes of accidents for 2009, a complete year for the administra-tion process and the classification of cases.In order to detail the injured person characteristics, some variables have been used,including the qualification, age, sex and country of birth.To detail the accident characteristics, the following variables have been chosen: shiptype, accident consequences in terms of permanent consequences, nature of injuryand injured parts of the body.Finally, to analyse the modes of the injury we recurred to the variables ESAW/3, varia-bles identified in the third phase of the European project (European Statistics onAccidents at Work) which led to a system aimed at describing the accident dynamicsby means of an appreciation of eight variables which, combined with other informa-tion related to the same case and referring to the injured person and their workingenvironment, allow to provide the elements to carry out an in depth analysis of thecauses and suggest practical and targeted advice in terms of prevention.Referring to the data concerning seafarers collected by INAIL over the period2004-2011, the MIT received 300 notifications per year less. Moreover, the acci-dent forms were sent to MIT from 2005, with (variable) information different fromthe notifications sent to INAIL, with more details in some areas and fewer detailsin others. Furthermore, the accidents recorded by the MIT over the period 200 -2011 regard not only maritime workers - as in INAIL Databank - but, in 22 casesover 6,637, also the passengers on board, modifying in this way, even if slightly,the sample basis. To allow for a comparison of some cases and an overlapping of others, MIT andINAIL variables have been harmonised, as far as possible, with the ESAW ones. We proceeded then to harmonise the category variables “Age of injured person”,“Type of injury”, “Part of body injured”, “Qualification level” (professional qualificationof the victim), according to the following modalities:

Age of injured person

The variable referring to the age of the injured person is the easiest to harmonise,because it can be aggregated according to the different age groups. In this case, weadopted the age groups used by INAIL and integrating the MIT data.


110

Type of injury suffered by the victim

The INAIL (former IPSEMA) mode « concussion, internal ruptures, hernias » is tracea-ble to two different MIT modes : “Concussion / bruise / bump” as regards concus-sions, and “strain-related injuries” as regards the internal ruptures and hernias. Thetwo MIT categories refer to the mode of injury and also its nature, if occurred in con-sequence of an impact with an external body (concussion / bruise / bumps) orbecause of an internal injury due to an excessive stress (strain-related injuries). In theanalysis of the MIT we have chosen to use the two modes coded by the MIT, becau-se they allow for a greater characterization of the type of injury, even if within the“strain-related injuries” MIT mode there is no distinction (that is on the contrary pre-sent in the INAIL / IPSEMA mode) between “internal ruptures and hernias” and“muscular distractions and lumbagos”. The MIT mode “ruptures / cut” may be considered as an aggregated category resul-ting from INAIL (former IPSEMA) modes “injuries from cut”, “lacerated wounds” and“wounds with lacerations and bruises”. Similarly to the MIT mode “drowning /asphyxia” with the INAIL (former IPSEMA) modes “drowning” and “intoxications bygas, food, asphyxias”.The MIT mode “puncture” was considered as corresponding to the INAIL (formerIPSEMA) “puncture wounds”, even if in a non complete way. We have therefore chosen to use the following harmonized variables in the MITanalysis:


111

Type of injury ( MIT original) Type of injury (harmonized)

Amputation Amputations, eliminations

Drowning / asphyxiation Drowning, intoxication from gas, food, asphyxiations

Concussions / bruise / bump Concussions, bruises, excoriations, abrasions

Frostbite Frostbites, cold shocks

Foreign bodies Penetrating foreign bodies

Sprain / Dislocation Dislocations, sprains, luxations

Fracture / crushing Fractures, infractions, crushing

Laceration / Cut Cut wounds, with lacerations and bumps

Overexertion injuries Internal ruptures, hernias, muscle overextensions, lumbagos

Puncture Puncture wounds

Burn Burns, chemical burns

Other / unknown Other / Unknown


112

Injured part (MIT) Injured part (harmonized variable)

Head / Neck / Eyes / Nose Head (cranium, neck, nape)

Thorax / Back / Shoulder Thorax, ribs, back, backbone

Abdomen / buttocks / hip/ thigh Abdomen, hips, pelvis, sacral bone region

Arm / Elbow / Forearm / Wrist Upper limbs

Hand / Fingers (thumb excluded)/Thumb Hands and fingers

Knee / leg / Ankle Lower limbs

Foot / Foot toes Feet and toes

Internal injuries Internal organs, brain, spinal marrow, nervous system

Multiple injuries Multiple parts

Other (specify) Other / Unknown

Professional qualification (MIT) Aggregated mode

Chief mate Deck officer

1st Engineer officer Engineer officer

Part of body injured

The MIT mode “Thorax / Back / Shoulder” may be seen as an aggregated variableof the INAIL variables “Thorax, ribs, back” and “backbone”. As regards the MITmodes “Internal injuries”, we assume it as corresponding to a pair of INAIL modestogether “internal organs” and “brain, spinal marrow and nervous system”.The harmonization of the INAIL (former IPSEMA) mode “face (mouth, nose, ears)”was deemed problematic with the MIT codification “Nose” because the former inclu-des some parts of the body that, according to the MIT codification, are includedwithin the MIT mode “Head /Neck”.Furthermore, the MIT mode “Other (specify)” consists of an open-ended descriptionthat, in case there are significant elements, may be analysed in order to identifyrecurrent modes not included in the list. With purpose of the study under examina-tion, we assume that the MIT mode may be excluded from the analyses.We have chosen, therefore, to use the following harmonized variables in the MITanalyses:

Occupational status of the injured person

In the analysis carried out by the MIT, the variable related to the professional statusof the injured person was aggregated according to the working area aboard ship,enlisting the occupational roles in the following way:


113


2nd Purser Accommodation crew

2nd Second deck officer Deck officer

2nd Engineer officer Engineer officer

3rd Purser Accommodation crew member

3rd Deck officer Deck officer

3rd Engineer officer Engineer officer

Assistant power plant mechanic Assistant engineer officer

Assistant steward’s mate Galley crew members

Carpenter aid Assistant deck officer

Lounge steward Accommodation crew

Apprentice Steward assistant Accommodation crew

Apprentice cadet deck Ordinary deck cadet

Ordinary apprentice Polyvalent crew

Apprentice electrician Cadet Assistant engineer officer

Apprentice mechanic worker Cadet Assistant engineer officer

Cadet power plant mechanic Cadet Assistant engineer officer

Apprentice polyvalent worker Polyvalent crew

Cadet deck officer Cadet deck officer

Cadet engineer officer Cadet engineer officer

Office assistant Accommodation crew

Bartender Accommodation crew

Steward’s mate Galley crew

Waiter/waitress Accommodation crew

Waiter/Waitress Accommodation crew

Chef commis Accommodation crew

Chef de rang Galley and catering crew

Head worker Assistant engineer officer

Master craftsman Polyvalent crew

Commander Master

Carpenter Assistant deck officer

Purser Accommodation crew

Master Master

Steward Accommodation crew

Ordinary engine worker Ordinary engine worker

Ordinary polyvalent crew Polyvalent crew

Conductor Master /Captain


114


Chef of crew Galley and housekeeping crew

Chief engineer officer Chief engineer officer

Steward of crew Galley and housekeeping crew

Electrician or second electrician Assistant deck officer

Refrigeration engineer Assistant deck officer

Cabin boy Cabin crew

Galley boy Galley and housekeeping crew

First class cabin boy Accommodation crew

Second class cabin boy Accommodation crew

Deck boy Ordinary on deck

Engine boy Ordinary in engine room

Crane boy Assistant deck officer

Hotel nightwatch Accommodation crew

Hostess Accommodation crew

Nurse Health care staff

Greaser Engine crew

Maitre d'hotel Accommodation crew

Seaman Deck crew

Doctor on board Health care staff

Ship’s boy Deck crew member

Boatswain/Second boatswain Assistant deck officer

Deck worker Deck crew member

Mechanic worker Assistant engineer officer

Engine worker Assistant engineer officer

GMDSS operator Deck officer

Plumber Assistant engineer officer

Junior in room service Accommodation crew

Junior in galley Galley and housekeeping crew

Chef de rang - Cabin head Accommodation crew

First chef Galley and housekeeping crew

First electrician Assistant engineer officer

First boatswain Assistant deck officer

Second chef Galley and housekeeping crew

Tankerman for oil tankers Assistant deck officer

Tankerman for gas tankers Assistant deck officer

Tankerman for oil tankers Assistant deck officer

Sea and weather conditions at time of accident

The accident form and the summary investigation sent to the MIT following an acci-dent contain, among other information, the sea and weather conditions at the time ofaccident. The information received by the MIT are, usually, sufficiently detailed andto simplify of data aggregation, we preferred to use a dichotomic variable in the MITdata analyses, as shown:


115


Third cook Galley and housekeeping crew

Motorman Assistant deck officer

Sales assistant Accommodation crew

Baker Galley and housekeeping crew

Pantry boy Galley and housekeeping crew

Office assistant student Accommodation crew

Student hostess Accommodation crew

Port officer Port officer

Underwater operator Personnel in charge of various services

Passengers Passenger

Conductor and motorman Master

Moorer Port officer

Unknown Other / unknown

Not highlighted Other / unknown

sea and weather conditions (MIT original values) New modes (aggregated)

“Wind force 0 - 3” and “Sea-state 0 - 3” Favourable

“Wind force 4 - 6” and/or “Sea-state 4 - 6” Unfavourable

“Wind force 7 - 9” and/or “Sea-state 7 - 9” Unfavourable

“Mist / Fog / hoarfrost” and/or “Snow / Ice” Unfavourable

No data available unknown

Legal references and bibliography

Law 16 June 1939, n. 1045, concerning hygiene and habitability conditions of crewsaboard national merchant ships.

Presidential Decree, 30 June 1965, n. 1124 “Consolidation Act of provisions for thestatutory insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases”.

International Convention on free Board, entered into force on 21 July 1968.

Legislative Decree 663/79 converted into Law N. 33/80 “Financing of nationalhealth care service and extension of contracts agreed upon by public administra-tions on the basis of the Law n. 285 of 1st June 1977 concerning young peopleemployment”.

Law n. 313 of 23 May 1980 concerning the membership to the InternationalConvention on safeguard of human life at sea, called SOLAS Convention, and sub-sequent modifications and integrations.

Law n. 157 of 10 April 1981 concerning the ratification and execution of labour interna-tional convention n. 109 relating to the duration of time spent aboard and to the com-plement crew, n. 134 on prevention from injuries of seafarers and n. 139 on preventionand control over occupational risks caused by cancer-related agents and substances.

Law n. 158 of 10 April 1981, concerning the ratification and execution of Labour interna-tional conventions n. 92 and n. 133 on the accommodations of the crews aboard ships.

IMO Resolution A.468 (XII) of 19 November 1981 “Rules concerning noise levelsaboard ships”.

Presidential Decree n. 435 of 8 November 1991 concerning the regulation on ship-ping safety and human life at sea.

Presidential Decree n. 435 of 8 November “Approval of regulation for seagoingshipping and human life at sea” (S.O. to O.J. n. 17 of 22 January 1992).

Directive n. 92/29/CE of 31 March 1992 concerning the minimum requirements ofhealth and safety to promote a better medical assistance aboard ships,

IMO Resolution A. 741(18) adopted on 4 November 1993 - ISM Code.

Directive n. 98/35/CE of 22 June 1998 modifying the Directive n. 94/58/EC of 22November 1994 concerning the minimum requirements of seafarers training.


116

Directive n. 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the agreement on the workingtime of seafarers, concluded by the Association of ship-owners of the Europeancommunity (ECSA) and the Federation of transport workers’ unions of the EuropeanUnion (FST).

International Convention for the Safeguard of Human Life at Sea (SOLAS) - conso-lidated edition, entered into force on 1 July 2009.

Ministerial Decree on Health of 20 August 1999 concerning the enlargement of theregulation and technical methodologies for the sanification interventions, includedthose to remove the asbestos, as laid down in the law n. 257/92 (the annex 1 laysdown regulations and technical methodologies for the elimination of material contai-ning asbestos aboard ships or assimilated units).

Legislative Decree n. 271 of 27 July 1999, Adaptation of the legislation on healthand safety of seafarers aboard national merchant fishing ships.

Legislative Decree n. 272 of 27 July 1999 - Adaptation of the legislation on healthand safety of workers when they carry out port operations and services, as well asmaintenance, fixing and transformation operations of ships in ports.

Presidential Decree of 6 October n. 407 “Regulation containing implementationrules of Directives 96/98/EC and 98/85/EC concerning shipboard crews” and subse-quent modifications.

IMO Resolution A. 890 821) of 25 November 1999 “Principles of security for thecrew” as modified by IMO Resolution A.955 (23) of 5 December 2003.

Directive n. 99(95/EC of 13 December 1999 concerning the implementation of theprovisions related to shipboard working time of seafarers landing in the harbours ofthe Community.

Law n. 511 of 17 December 1999 concerning the membership of the Italian Republicat the Protocol of 1993 in relation to the International Convention of Torremolinos of1977 on security of fishing vessels (Torremolinos, 2 April 1993),

Legislative Decree n. 541 concerning the implementation of Directives 97/70/ECand 99/19/EC in relation to security on fishing vessels of a length equal or above 24metres.

Legislative Decree n. 38 of 23 February 2000, containing the provisions concerningthe insurance against labour accidents and occupational disease, in accordancewith article 55, paragraph 1 of Law n. 144 of 17 May 1999.


117

Directive 2001/45/EC concerning the minimum requirements for works at a height.

Legislative Decree n. 235 of 8 July 2003 concerning the minimum requirements forworks at a height.

UNI EN ISO 20344:2012 Legislation concerning the personal protection devices -Methods of proof of shoes.

Ministerial Decree 10 October 2005 - Implementation of the Directive 1999/95/ECof Parliament and the Council of 13 December 1999, concerning the implementationof the provisions on shipboard working time of seafarers, which harbour in the portsof the Community (OJ n. 266 of 15 November 2005).

Legislative Decree n. 108 of 27 May 2005 - Implementation of the Directive1999/63/EC concerning the agreement on the organization of seafarers workingtime, concluded by the European community Ship owners’ Association (ECSA) andby the Federation of Transport Workers’ Union of the European Uniton (FST).

ILO Convention n. 186 of 23 February 2006 “Maritime Labour Convention” concer-ning the rules on the maritime work.

ILO Convention n. 188 of 14 July 2007 “Work in fishing convention” - which collects,updates and integrates all the preceding conventions concerning health and safetyat work aboard fishing vessels.

ILO Convention n. MLC 2006 - International convention on maritime labour(Maritime Labour Convention) of 2006.

Regulation n. 336/2006/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15February 2006 on the implementation in the Community of the “International Code ofSafety Management” which repeals the Regulation (EC) 3051/95 of the Council.

Legislative Decree n. 195 of 10 April 2006, Implementation of the Directive2003/10/EC concerning the exposition of workers to physical agents related risks(noise).

Circular Communication MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.3 of 5 June 2006 “Guidelines on theBasic Elements of a Shipboard occupational Health and Safety Programme”.

Law n. 123 of 3 August 2007 concerning the actions aimed at the protection of healthand safety at work and delegation to the Government for the adjustment and thereformation of relevant legislation.


118

Legislative Decree n. 81 of 9 April 2008 - Implementation of article 1 of Law n. 123of 3 August 2007 concerning health and safety protection in the workplace.

UNI EN 363:2008 Legislation concerning the personal protection devices againstfall - personal systems for the protection against fall.

Directive 2009/15/EC of 23 April 2009 concerning the provisions and the commonrules for the organisms carrying out inspections and controls on ships and for anyrelevant activity of the maritime administrations.

Directive 2009/18/EC of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles con-cerning the investigations into accidents in the shipping sector, modifying theDirective 1999/35/EC of the Council and the Directive 2002/59/EC of the EuropeanParliament and the Council.

Directive 2009/21/EC of 23 April 2009 concerning the compliance with the flagcountry requirements.

Law Decree 12 May 2012 n. 57 (In Official Journal n. 111 of 14 May) - Urgent provi-sions concerning health and safety protection in the workplace in transport andmicro-companies sector.

Circular of the General Command of the Harbourmasters’ Offices - General Seriesn. 83 of 21 May 2010 concerning shipping safety - Amendments to ISM Code, adop-ted by means of the Resolution MCS 273(85) of 4 December 2008, and the CircularS.G. of 2/8/2007.

IACS Resolution n. 127 of June 2012 concerning the Guidelines for the preparationof the Risk Assessment.

IMO Resolution MSC.273 (85) entered into force on 1 July 2010 concerning the pro-vision of a Risk Assessment within the SMS.

ISO 13287:2012 Legislation concerning Personal Protection Devices - Shoes andmethods to assess slipping resistance.


119

Falls from above in maritime work: a nosological case ... · Giorgio Guastella4, Ezio Iacovini5,...

Documents

Transcript of Falls from above in maritime work: a nosological case ... · Giorgio Guastella4, Ezio Iacovini5,...