Matthew James WILMOT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 1June 2017 I commenced an Investigation into the death of Matthew James WILMOT aged 40 years. The Investigation concluded at the end of the Inquest on 12 April 2018. The conclusion of the Inquest was ‘Accidental Death’. The medical cause of death was:

I (a) High blood ethanol concentration consistent with
significant intoxication together with fatal hypoxia

The deceased went out for the afternoon/evening to watch the FA Cup Final with friends. A friend travelled back with him by taxi, dropping him off near his home at 00.45 hours on 28th May 2017. At 07:14 hours a call was made to the Ambulance Control from the resident of 280 Devon Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, stating that the deceased was upside down in a hole outside her house.

The accident happened on a path which had been excavated to find a stop cock. The excavation had been abandoned as a Deep Excavation Team was required. The path was closed by placing a sign at each end of the path stating that the path was closed. The hole and spoil were fenced off by using a metal railed fence which was alongside the path and 4 plastic yellow barriers which were secured to the metal fence. A risk assessment had taken place.

The evidence was that the risk assessment was in line with the Red Book and Industry Standards. The Red Book encourages a risk assessment based on the locality, footfall, etcetera. My concern is that not enough consideration was given to the nature of the path.

To all intents and purposes there are two types of paths. The most common is the path that runs parallel to a highway. If that path is closed, the pedestrian can be guided around the excavation or told to cross the road. It is unlikely that the pedestrian would walk through a barriered area in such circumstances as that would be slower than walking around it.

The second type of path is one that is unique in its journey from A to B, ie there is no road to the side. This particular path lead from the road to a row of houses, which were not accessible by road. The alternative route (which was not signposted) was 150 metres away, meaning a diversion of about 300 metres.

The path was not located in an area of risk.

However, my concern is that a route that is unique is always at risk as pedestrians will want to travel the shortest route. This is backed up by the evidence in the Inquest which recorded 9 pedestrians (including the deceased) travelling through the closed path in the 7 hours before the deceased was found. The excavators took photographs of the site just before they left it. Looking at those photographs, I would have risked walking down the closed path.

My concern is that there is not enough emphasis within the risk assessment process that a route that is unique has different risks to a path that is parallel.