top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Farm worker dragged into reed combing machine

Farm worker dragged into reed combing machine

Health and Safety Executive v Dullam & Co (Farmers) Ltd (2018) Exeter magistrates’ court, July 25

Statutory reference: regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).

Dullam & Co (Farmers) Ltd has been fined after a worker was dragged into a reed combing machine.

The facts

  • In March 2017 John Dullam, a director of the company, was working on the machine at a farm in South Molton. His overalls became entangled in the drum feed intake. His legs were pulled into the machine and were trapped. He suffered serious injuries.

  • The drum belt feed intake had no effective guarding to prevent any person coming into contact with drum. Following a blockage, Dullam climbed onto the machine and stepped down onto the platform where the drum feed mouth was located. The machine restarted and caused his overalls to become entangled in the drum belt. He was drawn feet-first into the machine.

The decision

The company was fined £6000 plus £1000 costs plus a victim surcharge of £120 under regulation 11 of PUWER.

Recent Posts

See All


Limitation Case TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7, Hugh Court Facts Eight men who had been sexually abused by a football coach in the 1980s claimed compensation in negligence fro

Crown immunity and the rule of law (3)

Civil proceedings Until 1948 the Crown could not be made a party to a civil action. This was an offshoot of the principle of sovereign immunity. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 changed this rule. The C

Crown immunity and the rule of law (2)

Recent examples In June 2018 prison officers were taking part in a petrol bomb training exercise. This was part of an eight-day commanders course at the National Tactical Response Group training facil


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page