In the four out of 11 OSHA fatal accident reports included involving overhead cranes, all occurred in the year to July 2024. All have said that they were fatalities. In less official language, 11 people were killed. They died in the course of what should have been the routine and safe operation of overhead lifting machinery. Not one of those deaths was necessary – all of the workers involved should have been alive today.
One of the four accidents selected was caused by an eyebolt separating from its load. One occurred when a load fell from its rigging. The third was due to the failure of a wire rope. The fourth arose from a non-vertical lift.
Those were the immediate causes. Underlying all of them was a common fundamental cause: human error. A lapse of concentration, a failure to observe the proper rigging procedures, a failure to check that machinery was in good condition, a failure to observe proper lifting procedures – it was, in all these cases, a person who got things wrong.
Rigging, pre-operation checks and, above all, concentration on the job in hand – these are things that good training tries to instil in people who work with or around hoists. That is one reason that in this issue of hoist, both safety and training are the focus – safety and training are inextricably linked.
These particular accidents happened in the US – OSHA rules and regulations therefore applied. Specifically, the regulation in question is OSHA reg: 1910.179(b)(1), which states at its opening: “Application: This section applies to overhead and gantry cranes, including semi gantry, cantilever gantry, wall cranes, storage bridge cranes and others having the same fundamental characteristics. These cranes are grouped because they all have trolleys and similar travel characteristics.”
Under section 1910.179(n)(3) entitled ‘Moving the load’, paragraph 1910.179(n)(3)(i) states: “The load shall be well secured and properly balanced in the sling or lifting device before it is lifted more than a few inches.” It seems a statement of the obvious, indeed almost too obvious to be worth writing down. Yet failure to observe that all-tooobvious paragraph resulted in the first two deaths above.
According to paragraph 1910.179(n)(3)(vi): “The employer shall require that the operator avoid carrying loads over people.” If this requirement was being observed, how was it that the falling load – in Case Study 2 below, it was an 880lb piece of steel – fell onto and killed an employee?
Under ‘Running ropes’, paragraph 1910.179(m)(1) states: “A thorough inspection of all ropes shall be made at least once a month and a certification record which includes the date of inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection and an identifier for the ropes which were inspected shall be kept on file. Any deterioration, resulting in appreciable loss of original strength, shall be carefully observed and determination made as to whether further use of the rope would constitute a safety hazard,” states OSHA.
It goes on to list some of the conditions that could lead to loss of rope strength. They include broken wires, worn outside wires, corroded or broken wires at end connections and severe kinking, crushing, cutting or unstranding. The accident report does not say which of these led to the wire rope failing, but it may be presumed that the ‘thorough inspection’ that should have been made ‘at least once a month’, and the accompanying certification record, should have spotted it.
OSHA regulation 910.179(n)(3)(ii)(c) says: “The hook shall be brought over the load in such a manner as to prevent swinging.” In the fourth of our fatal accidents, this clearly was not done.
US rules for safety in lifting are laid down by OSHA. In the UK, PUWER and LOLER are the regulatory bodies. Organisations such as LEEA in addition have produced best practice guidelines. The LEEA Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Lifting Equipment (with the acronym COPSULE) can be downloaded for free from their website. It is a very complete document and it runs to 422 pages. The chapters and sections cover topics such as Bridge and Gantry Cranes, Hand Operated Chain Hoists, Hand Operated Chain Lever Hoists, Lifting and Pulling Machines, Power Operated Hoists, Winches Used for Lifting Purposes and very many more. It also covers slings – chain slings, wire rope slings, flat Woven webbing slings, man-made fibre round slings as well as clamps, lifters, eyebolts, rigging screws and so on. The current edition, the ninth, was revised in January 2024.
LEEA have also produced a rather handy printed pocket guide, which references best practice and key information from the above 422 pages, together with additional information. It is A6 size, which makes it easy to carry about on-site, and is intended as a working tool for the competent person responsible for planning, pre-use checking and rigging of lifting equipment to carry with them and use as an immediate source of reference.
The HSE in the UK do not collate accident reports in the same format as the OSHA examples we have quoted above. They do however give statistical breakdowns of accident rates, from which we can extract the following:
“One hundred and twenty-four workers were killed in work-related accident in the UK in 2024/5. One would imagine that heavy industry would be one of the more hazardous areas of endeavour. Yet heavy industry, and the heavy lifting that goes with it, were by no means the leading cause of fatal accidents in the year in question. Construction, with 35 fatalities, and agriculture, forestry and fishing, with 23 in total, took those unenviable places. There were 11 deaths in manufacturing – much heavy industry would be classed as manufacturing; transportation and storage had 15, (there may have been lifting-related incidents there also); and ‘Administrative and support services’ (13) and the HSE category ‘wholesale, retail, motor repair, accommodation and food’ had 12 fatalities. Heavy industry, therefore, seems by comparison to be rather safer than construction, agriculture, forestry or deep-sea fishing.
It’s not hard to find out why – construction sites are places of wind, weather, mud. They are crossed by open trenches and excavations, and are frequented by ever-changing groups of workforces from a multitude of differing contractors and trades. They are hazardous environments that are in the process of being turned into safer ones but have not yet got there. Agriculture and forestry are similarly exposed, with heavy machinery and exposed operatives working often on steep slopes that are almost by definition muddy, slippery and unpaved. Even the most hazardous of industrial heavy lifting cannot compare in danger with a tree surgeon climbing a tall and possibly branch-shedding tree with a live chain saw in his hand.
And large industrial concerns are safety conscious. No large company wants to risk its reputation or its share price – let alone its workforce – by reports of accidents or of unsafe working practices. Safety will be drilled into every employee from the start, and larger companies will employ specialised safety officers to ensure that safe practices are strictly adhered to.
Which is no reason at all for complacency. Accidents, including fatal ones, still happen. HSE categorises the causes of the fatalities it records. Of all those 125 fatalities, 35 were by falling from a height, 18 were “struck by a moving object” (hence possibly relevant to lifting), 17 were “trapped by something moving/overturning” and 13 died from “contact with moving machinery”. Every one of these may have been related to lifting operations, though HSE does not specify them as such.
Earlier we pointed out that the fatal accidents had one underlying cause: human error. It may be tempting then to blame them on the human who made that error. That would be simplistic, or indeed incorrect.
In law, in the UK, it is not only the hoist or crane operator who has responsibility for preventing accidents. LOLER makes this clear. If you are an employer who provides lifting equipment at work; or if you “have control of the use of lifting equipment”; then you are classed as a “duty holder” in the eyes of the HSE, and of the law. In other words, you do not have to actually own the equipment if, say, you are leasing it, you are just as much a “duty holder” as if you own it outright. And that duty that you hold means that it is your responsibility to ensure that the lifting equipment in question is safe. It is, therefore, down to you to ensure that the required periodic inspections do in fact happen, at the required intervals; and that full and secure records of those inspections are kept and can be made available.
It is also down to you to ensure that the hoist is fit for purpose, appropriate for the task and is suitably marked. For example, the safe working load SWL of the hoist should be clearly visible on it – and so must any differences in the SWL that arise in different configurations of the machine, for example, on a crane where SWL varies with radius of lift. Maintenance must have been performed – both the regular maintenance and any maintenance or repairs whose need is brought to light by the required inspections we have just mentioned.
Even if you are self-employed, with a hoist that you yourself own and that only you operate, the regulations – and the responsibilities – still apply. The reason is obvious – you are not the only person at risk from a botched or failed lift. Passers-by can be injured or killed.
Nothing in any of the OSHA or LOLER regulations and best practice guides is remarkable, or unexpected, or departs in any way from common sense. That, in a way, is the problem – everything in them, and in all that we have written above, is common sense. Causes of accidents are usually easy to spot – after the event, when it is too late. The lesson from that is a simple one: rules, regulations, best practices are there for good reasons. Seven words can sum it up – the price of safety is eternal vigilance.
LOLER CONSULTATION
The Health and Safety Executive is currently gathering information and evidence relating to the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment (LOLER) and whether their scope and application are still fit for purpose.
Their call for evidence aims to gather information that the HSE will use to help identify and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens to save businesses time and money without compromising safety; and to understand and identify whether the current application of the regulations reflects technological advances. This is in line with the commitment made in the UK government’s ‘New Approach to ensure Regulators and Regulation Support Growth’ Regulatory Action Plan, or RAP.
The HSE call targets companies – manufacturers, importers and suppliers – and users, owners, duty holders and any other organisation holding relevant information. The views of owners and operators of hoists are, therefore, particularly sought here. The information provided will be used to support a review of the LOLER Regulations.
The consultation closes on 11 November 2025.
Case Study 1: At 8:00am on 15 July 2024, an employee was moving a stamping die with an overhead crane. The employee had not tightly secured at least one of the four eyebolts into the die. As the employee was lifting/moving the die with an overhead crane, one of the eyebolts came out of the die, which caused it to shift, and a corner of the die struck the ground. Following this, the top half of the die came off the bottom half and stuck the employee, ultimately landing on top of his body. The employee was killed.
Case Study 2: At 9:50am on 28 June 2024, Employee #1, employed by a manufacturing company, was conducting a material lift using an overhead crane. During the lift, an 880lbs piece of steel material became loose from the rigging, striking and falling onto Employee #1. Emergency services were called and personnel arrived on the scene to free the employee. The employee was airlifted for medical treatment but later died from their injuries. The cause of death was determined by Harris County Forensics to be blunt trauma to the chest.
Case Study 3: At 7:30am on 27 June 2024, an employee working as a crane operator for an automotive parts manufacturer was using the east crane, an EMH Model ZLK Overhead Gantry Crane (Serial Number 101677). The employee was using the crane’s 20t hoist to lift a 14.5t plastic injection machine mould. A co-worker was working nearby operating the adjacent west crane’s 20t hoist to lift a mould. As the employee hoisted the mould from staging, the wire rope failed. The mould being lifted dropped onto a mould that was staged on the ground under the load causing the steel back plate of the falling mould to shear off during the fall. The 5,000lbs back plate from the falling mould then projected towards the employee and struck him, pinning him underneath. The co-worker witnessed the incident. The employee died from multiple blunt force and crushing injuries.
Case Study 4: At 5:38pm on 9 November 2023, Employee #1, a press associate, was pre-staging a PACCAR door opening panel die that weighed 88.8t for a press machine. Employee #1 moved the die, while standing between two dies with an overhead crane. The die tilted because the crane was not centred over the die. The die moved towards Employee #1 and pinned him between the die and the other die. Employee #1 died from his injuries of traumatic asphyxia at the scene.
