Commission de sécurité des consommateurs

THE CONSUMER SAFETY COMMISSION

Having regard to Petitions 01-061, 02-038, 02-039, 04-020, 04-050, 04-056, 04-014, 04-092, 04-105, 04-139, 05-017A, 05-031, 05-037, 05-071, 05-084 and 05-091

The Consumer Safety Commission (CSC) has been informed[1] or petitioned about accidents or incidents putting in issue the organisation of safety in commercial premises. As accidents are recurrent, the Commission, which has already issued two opinions on this topic, needs to draft a status report on the measures that the public authorities and trade federations have taken for accident risk prevention.

On 6 May 2001, Mrs. F. informed the Commission of her daughter’s accident on the premises of the LECLERC Centre in VILLENEUVE-SUR-LOT on 5 January 2001, “My daughter, who was six and a half at the time, got several fingers of her right hand caught in an unprotected moving belt at the checkout counter. Two of her fingers were seriously injured (crushed but not broken) and we had to take her to the SMUR [emergency room]. Since the accident, there has been persistent densification at the joint of 2 phalanxes.” The personnel of the establishment did not provide any first aid immediately after the accident. Some advice was given, such as “Run cold water over your hand,” or “Rub on a bit of arnica liniment on it.” After lodging a complaint with the store manager, several days after the accident Mrs. F. went to the store and saw that only some moving belts had been made safe while others still had a very wide space where a child’s fingers might be trapped.

Thanks to steps taken by E. LECLERC authorities with the Manager of the VILLENEUVE-SUR-LOT store, the particulars of the moving belt manufacturer, SIDAC, and a copy of the conformity certificate stating that the moving belts at the checkout counters were compliant with the provisions of the so-called Machinery Directive 89/392/EEC[2] were collected. On the other hand, the SIDAC manager did not answer a request for a hearing that the CSC sent to the company on 29 October 2001.

 

 

In a letter dated 12 March 2002 from the METZ UFC QUE CHOISIR (Union Fédérale des Consommateurs, an independent association of manufacturers, retailers and the French State), the CSC was informed of other accidents involving moving belts at checkout counters. On 25 August 2002, while Mr. and Mrs. B. were paying for their groceries at a checkout counter at the AUCHAN Shopping Centre in SEMECOURT (Lorraine), their then three year-old son’s hand was trapped under the protective hood of the rear moving-belt at the checkout counter. Although the belt stopped, his mother had a hard time getting his hand out. The flexor tendons of two fingers were severed. The child was immediately rushed to the nearest hospital for an operation. AUCHAN provided the following information in answer to a CSC letter:

 

1.       Similar events already occurred on 4 November 2000. The parents pressed charges. The ensuing police investigation did not uncover ‘anything unusual’ and the case was shelved

2.       In August 2000, the relevant checkout counters were installed with equipment listed by the AUCHAN France purchasing pool and manufactured by RASEC. On 24 February 2000, SOCOTEC drew up a verification of machine conformity report on the equipment, pursuant to Article R. 233-83 of the Labour Code 

3.       The safety system (moving belt stops the minute the protective hood at the rear of the moving belt is lifted) operated normally when the accidents occurred but AUCHAN has deemed the system insufficient to guarantee customer safety.

 

After the accident, the Checkout Counter Department at AUCHAN France decided to strengthen all the safety systems in every store equipped with moving belts. The locking plates were altered to narrow the space between the edge of the plate and the moving belt. The list of stores where alterations had been made on moving belts at checkout counters was sent to the CSC.

 

In a letter dated 22 January 2004, Mr. R. informed the Commission that his daughter had been injured on 27 December 2003 in a CONFORAMA store in HERBLAY. The child had sustained an injury to the larynx after bumping into a retractable keyboard shelf. While deploring store personnel’s unconcern at the accident, the child’s father noticed that the retractable shelves throughout the store were not pushed in meaning young children could bump into them.

 

After being petitioned by the Commission, the CONFORAMA Head Office regretted the less than courteous attitude of the personnel at its HERBLAY store and circulated an in-house memo written by the Accident Risk Prevention Manager to its entire retail network. The memo said the following, “A customer’s child was involved in an accident caused by a retractable keyboard shelf at a salesperson’s workstation; following the accident, I request that you make sure that the following measures are implemented: 

-          The sales personnel workstations should not be located in the circulation aisles and should be installed in such a way as not to endanger our customers (beware of wiring)

-          After each use, the shelf should be pushed back under the workstation

-          Remind customers that the store is not a playground for their children and that they are responsible for watching and supervising their children

-          Furthermore, the storage cabinets (for shoes, ref. 119 495 and 119 500) with tilt-up doors are unsteady and should be attached to prevent them from toppling.”

 

In a letter dated 29 January 2004, Mrs. G. informed the Commission of the accident involving her then two year-old son Eloi on 14 June 2002 at a FNAC store in GRENOBLE. “We had gotten off the lift and were going toward the welcome-bookstore area when a FNAC employee passed by pushing a trolley with books to restock the shelves. Eloi stopped to watch the trolley go by. At this point, he was standing near a metal shelf stacked with paperbacks. As the trolley had passed, Eloi turned his head to the left so we could be on our way to the bookstore. This is when his left eye was severed by the first metal shelf on his left. He immediately screamed out and I walked him over to some chairs standing near the welcome-bookstore area. An employee came over to us and suggested arnica but Eloi’s eye was running profusely.” The child was immediately taken to the emergency room where he underwent an operation to stitch his cornea. During the second semester in 2002, he underwent two other operations. In 2003, two medical certificates issued by the Grenoble University Hospital Centre certified that he had persisting visual complications, viz., failing visual acuity, detached retina, and ocular hypertonia complicated by glaucoma precluding his “access to certain professions such as airline pilot.” The child’s mother drew a profile sketch of the shelf rack corners showing that the edges of the metal shelves (the lowest shelf is at a child’s height i.e., 85cm) protruded. This statement was contradicted by the store authorities. In a letter dated 30 November 2004, they told the CSC that, “the expert report by the ACEA firm instructed by our insurance company has expressly reported that said item of furniture has smoothly rounded corners and does not present any potential hazard.” Although the store management pointed out that the personnel acted with due diligence with regard to the child at time of accident, the management finally decided to withdraw said shelf rack. 

 

On 20 March 2004, Mr. C. informed the CSC of the circumstances of an incident that occurred on 20 March 2004 in a BAOBAB outlet in ST MALO, an incident that could have had regrettable consequences for his son. “My three and a half year-old son was in a store aisle (pet section) when a rock weighing a hefty kilo (I believe it is for aquarium equipment) fell from a height of about 1.50 metres onto the floor. At the time, my son was two metres from the spot. Nobody was anywhere near the rocks. The rock had been on a pile of identical rocks stacked on two high shelves and one floor shelf. The noise (sharp, loud retort) was produced by a drop from of a first or second level shelf. My wife and I picked up the rock. You could still see the marks (dust) on the floor. We went to see an employee, explained what had just happened, and warned him of the danger. He asked us… if we wanted to buy the stone. As we said no, he put the rock back on the pile (…).”

After the banner store authorities  (POLLEN) had been petitioned, Mr. L, the store manager did not question the petitioner’s good faith but did feel that the display of ornamental aquarium rocks fully complied with the safety rules set by the consumer safety guide put out by the Fédération des métiers de la jardinerie (national federation of gardening trades) (which we deal with further down). Mr. L. wrote, “For safety reasons, the stones are small and placed in a dedicated net display stand provided by our supplier. To lower the risk of the stones falling and crushing someone, the display stand is a 1.50 metre-high, three-tiered shelf rack (with one ground level shelf) with narrow compartments where edges are tilted (raised).” The professional pointed out that as the display stand was “stabilised and placed on the ground,” it complied with the recommendations in the guide (paragraph 2.5 on the display of heavy objects). As Mr. L was aware that overloading the compartments could again cause stones to fall on customers, he took, “the initiative of filling the compartments to half capacity only so that no stone, even off balance, could fall down and he has been doing so since November 2004.”

 

 

Two petitions on accidents that occurred in two LEROY MERLIN banner stores were filed with the Commission:

 

1. Petition 04-056: On 19 April 2004, Mr. F. recounted the circumstances of the accident involving his then 4 year-old son Hugo on 28 January 2001 at the LEROY MERLIN outlet in BORDEAUX, after the collapse of a tiling display panel. Mr. F wrote, “Our son was playing in the Tile Department while my wife was getting advice from a sales person about the purchase of tiling for a terrace. The vertical display panel fell on our child’s leg and broke his femur. On the accident statement that I signed, it is written that our son grabbed onto the display that toppled over.”

 

LEROY MERLIN sent the following answer to the CSC on 6 December 2004.

 

According To The LEROY MERLIN Legal department, “atypical behaviour” caused the accident that gave rise to litigation.[3]

 

For some fifteen years, the tile floor-models have been embedded in wooden frames encased in metal frames called ‘ARIANE display stands’.

 

Two ‘sales advisors’ testified that the unsupervised[4] child had climbed onto a tile stand with a vertical and a horizontal part. The vertical part was a 1 x 1 meter panel weighing about 30kg and placed about 0.60cm off the ground. The child was thrown off balance on the 38% slope of the horizontal part so he grabbed the vertical part and the traction effort pulled the panel out of the metal encasing, causing the child to fall.

 

However, as LEROY MERLIN stated its concern with its customers’ safety, the company contacted the display stand supplier to find a technical solution to deal with this type of accident.

 

2. Petition 04-092: On 3 August 2004, the Union Fédérale des Consommateurs “Que Choisir ?” petitioned the CSC with Mrs. R’s testimony about the accident she had on 20 July 2004 at the LEROY MERLIN outlet at PLAN DE CAMPAGNE (CABRIES, BOUCHES DU RHONE 13000), “I was in the Gardening Department to buy a pergola when a section of the rack with metallic fence pickets behind me fell. The rack divider collapsed under the weight of the pickets. They fell on my left arm that was raised to protect myself. Fortunately, I did not break any bones but I did sustain big haematoma. Because of the injuries, I will have to interrupt my activities for a while. I would also like to add that it took four men to pull all the pickets up.” The Department Manager told Mrs. L. that, “unfortunately this was not an isolated incident.” The petitioner deplored the fact that no first-aid equipment was on hand in the store while waiting for the fire fighters.

 

In its letter dated 6 December 2004, LEROY MERLIN explained the following.

 

The LEROY MERLIN banner store had little information, as there were no witnesses and the personnel’s accident report related the fall of objects without explaining the cause. The metallic pickets were stored vertically in two different types of racks. One type can bear a load of about 1 ton and the other type a load of about 3 tons. The racks come with bars or cables preventing the products from falling out. According to the store management, the fall of the pickets could be explained by customers moving the products.

 

Concerning the requirement for product display arrangement and control, the different stores have an intranet network access to a ‘display arrangement bible’ per department listing the recommended arrangement for each type of product and providing a technical sheet including photos and diagrams. 

 

The personnel in charge of premise maintenance controls that products are properly displayed on a weekly basis. 

 

The company devoted €11 million per year for the maintenance and renewal of its display equipment, i.e., an average of €180,000 per store in 2004 (not including additions to the buildings or new stores). 

 

In a letter dated 22 September 2004, Mrs. L. drew the Commission’s attention to the risks run by customers when a disaster occurs in a store (referring to the Cash Affaire banner store). Merchandise had been piled in front of the emergency exits thus obstructing their access. Mrs. L. protested against a practice that she felt was a flagrant lack of compliance with user safety.

 

 

Mrs. N. informed the CSC that in July 2004 her 53 year-old mother slipped in a hypermarket in a shopping centre. The victim stumbled on a cherry stone at the Fruit & Vegetable Department and sustained a knee injury. Over a year later, the victim had still not recovered the full use of her leg (8% of invalidity) and would probably have to be operated on again.

 

 

On 11 December 2004, as Mrs. E. was walking up and down the aisles of the CARREFOUR stores in MEYLAN (38), she fell hard on a still wet floor that had just been washed by a cleaning machine. Several months after the accident, on 11 February 2005, Mrs. E. informed the CSC that she was, “still an invalid with pins, ties and cerclage in my knee and a temporary 91-day disability.” She added that,  “I only received a flower bouquet from CARREFOUR on 20 January last and I find this unthinkable… and offensive!”

 

The petitioner asked the CSC if it was normal for cleaning machines to work freely amid the customers and if there were regulations making it mandatory to set-up signs telling customers that they should not walk on a slippery floor after cleaning. On 7 April 2005, the CSC  wrote to CARREFOUR asking what measures were taken to control the risk of customers falling, in its outlets. In a letter dated 4 May 2005, CARREFOUR provided the Commission with the following information, “During hours when store is open to the public, a mechanical cleaner keeps the store clean subject to certain conditions. The machine can only be used during off-peak hours however handling ‘accidents’ by personnel and customers require spot operations. Mechanical cleaners have a warning beep and light. As for the unhappy accident involving Mrs. E., the case is being processed and we cannot communicate on this subject.”

 

 

On 3 July 2005, Mr. Jean-Christophe C. informed the Commission that he had broken his shoulder bone after slipping in a puddle of water at the Fish Department in a store whose name he withheld.

 

 

On 19 April 2005, at the CARREFOUR shopping centre in FRANCHEVILLE (69), Mr. P. was looking at items on the front-end of an island display with promotional posters behind Plexiglas. One poster was at face level for an adult  (1.70m) and the other at face level for a child. According to Mr. P., to reach the front-end display, he had to, “squeeze past (60cm passageway) a CD listening block.” When Mr. P swivelled his head around, he hit a poster that knocked his glasses off, slightly chipping the left lens. According to Mr. P., a wider passageway would have prevented Mr. P from bumping into the object. He complained of the personnel’s uncaring attitude as the on-duty supervisor declined any store liability “saying that it was my fault – just as if I had run into an electric pole.”

On 17 August 2005, Mrs. G. petitioned the Commission to report on that the personnel at an INTERMARCHE store did not provide assistance and was indifferent to her condition when she fell after having a dizzy spell.

 

On 1 September 2005, Mrs. F. informed the Commission that a Department Manager at a CORA store, “had dropped iron bars on her right foot” causing hospitalisation for blood-vessel damage and a 40-day sick leave.

Furthermore, the CSC has been petitioned or informed of accidents in public access or private premises that are similar to the accidents that occur in stores. The rapporteur deems it useful to mention these accidents in this case-file.

 

 

On 3 December 2004, the Commission was petitioned about an accident involving the 16-month old son of Mr. and Mr. S. at the Center Parcs facility in BOIS FRANCS on 15 November 2004.

Mrs. G. related the circumstances of the accident thus, “We had taken him to see a children’s show called Peteteve  that was being performed at the PLAZZA near the Chez Pierre coffee shop under the dome. He fell right next to the table where we were sitting while my husband was holding his hand. His upper lip sustained a deep cut so he had to be taken to the hospital in Verneuil sur Avre to get stitches. We are still in shock at what happened. The fall could have been fatal. He hit a decorative bed embedded with bevelled, protruding, cutting pieces of slate. They are there for decorative purposes and there are several inside the dome. This seems bizarre and unthinkable for a leisure facility that claims to be a children’s paradise.”

 

Furthermore, the petitioner deplored the fact that the infirmary was located in the pool area meaning that it was not within easy reach in case of emergency especially for an injury sustained at the other end of the facility.

 

In a letter dated 3 January 2005, the Director of the Bois-Francs facility sent the following information to the CSC.

 

The floor of the ‘PLAZZA Area’ at BOIS FRANCS is in quartzite (a less slippery material than slate) and is washed early enough in the morning so that the first customers can walk on a dry floor at 7:30 a.m. The pieces of slate that the child fell on had been sheared so they would not ‘asphyxiate’ the base of the big exotic trees.

 

The edges are neither sharp nor cutting (not anymore so than the edge of stair steps). The minute the authorities of the facility were informed of the accident, they filled in the space between the edge of the slate pieces and the tree trunk with big shingles. The access to the ‘infirmary’ room will be facilitated the next time works are scheduled.

 

France Soir (the Tuesday 30 August 2005 edition of the newspaper) recounted the circumstances of two fatal accidents caused by the accidental fall of heavy objects.[5]

 

 

II. THE OPINIONS ISSUED BY CSC

 

The CSC has issued two Opinions on consumer safety in commercial premises:

 

1.         Opinion of 7 February 2001  on consumer safety regarding product display requirements in commercial premises

It is appropriate here to quote CSC recommendations in full:

 

1.      Requests that the public authorities conduct a national census of accidents involving customers. Census should identify accident causes and the products involved in every sector of the so-called ‘self-service’ retailing industry. The census, which could be entrusted to the Institut de Veille Sanitaire (InVS, Sanitary Watch Institute), also concerns professionals with regards to their employees and the public they serve.

 

            - have signage notifying that any heavy object placed at an over 1.50 metre-high location or any pile of ‘heavy or bulky’ merchandise may be moved and conveyed by a Department Manager at customer’s request

      - clean floors during time when stores are not open to the public

 

 

-         Closely watch their children when they come with them to a store and not let them run around unsupervised

-         Systematically ask personnel to handle the transport of ‘hazardous’ merchandise

-         Use the appropriate shopping carts available at the banner store

-         Use vehicles appropriate to the transported load (weight and size) for traffic accident risk prevention

-         Inform the CSC of reported safety deficiencies or accidents in super-stores, by every available means.”

 

All the Opinion recommendations have remained without effect and specifically:

 

-         A comprehensive census of accidents and their causes that could have confirmed or contradicted the figure of 40,000 yearly accidents extrapolated by the Directorate for Statistics and Studies, Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie (National Health Insurance Fund)

-         The developments of regulations and a service standard defining safety requirements for product display and handling that could have imposed the same rules on all retailing sectors, on the one hand, and facilitated the control of compliance with said rules by inspection services, on the other

 

The DGCCRF (General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control) has prioritised a pragmatic approach based on participating in the development of industry-specific safety guides by certain trade federations and on sending its officers to stores to check the proper implementation of the recommendations in the guides. In the 2001 CSC yearly activity report, the DGCCRF explained, “Even before the Opinion issued by the CSC, the DGCCRF built retailers’ awareness on the safety issues relative the safety of in-store consumers and the adoption of procedures and risk detection and reduction schemes. Not only are professional policies to draft and circulate guides to good practices encouraged and backed (as the DGCCRF participates in guide development work) but inspections are programmed at retailing venues to exercise direct control on the professionals so that they comply with the general safety obligation applicable to them, pursuant to Article L. 221-1 of the Consumer Code.”

 

In its Opinion of 7 February 2001, the Commission recommended that single-shank display hooks be covered with a protective cap to prevent young children from accidental ‘impalement’ on the hooks.

None of the current industry-specific safety guides advocates measures to make these products safe.

 

Other accidents that occurred since the CSC Opinion (including a fatal accident),[7] the Commission requested in its 2 April 2003 Opinion that emergency measures be taken to make the hooks safe.

 

In an Opinion published in the Official Journal of 29 December 2003, the Minister of State for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Trade, Craft Industries, the Professions and Consumer Affairs, pursuant to Article L. 227-7 of the Consumer Code, warned display hook manufacturers, importers and retailers and all retailers of the hazards of single-shank hooks with unprotected tips. The hooks must be made compliant with the general safety obligation, either by replacing them with safety hooks or by putting the appropriate protective caps on the tips.

 

Standardisation work to define the safety requirements applicable to single-shank, product display hooks has resulted in the 12 May 2005 approval of standard NF E25-80 on the single-shank fixtures used in stores.

The standard bans the use of single-shank fixtures where an unprotected tip provides frontal access to the cross-section of the fixture if the tip does not have protective wrapping. 

 

The standard fixes the acceptable shapes for fixtures and the minimum diameter of the protective cap according to fixture diameter, hence meeting the general safety obligation recalled to the relevant professionals in the warning published in the Official Journal of 29 December 2003.  

 

III. RESULTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S INSPECTIONS

 

To increase the efficiency of actual inspections (besides spot investigations in stores where accidents might occur), a general investigation has been programmed on a standing basis, to check the implementation conditions of the general safety obligation incumbent on retailers.

 

During the fourth quarter in 2004, the DGCCRF conducted a national investigation of 164 grocery super-stores (hypermarkets, supermarkets and mini-markets with an area greater than 300 square metres). The report highlights dissimilarities and the situation warrants special vigilance, according to the DGCCRF. Although no serious or immediate danger was reported, 20% of the inspected stores received letters reminding them of the regulations or notifications of regulatory information. In most cases, the remarks prompted the stores to upgrade to the safety standards in compliance with the wishes of the inspection services.

 

One satisfaction was that the vast majority of hooks is now safe thanks to plastic caps. Product display and floor conditions are two sources of major concern while the conditions governing shopping cart availability are not defined in detail by the banner stores, as underscored in the investigation:

 

“Concerning product display, the following anomalies are reported:

-         Heavy objects racks (tins, metallic trunks, and so on) placed in high locations

-         Self-serve stepladders without any sign with instructions for use

-         Obstructed aisles, overloaded shelves, pointed unprotected equipment within reach

-         Dangerous products in the Hardware Department are often mixed with innocuous products or placed in areas within children’s easy reach

IV. THE SAFETY GUIDES

 

1.       Presentation of the Guides

 

To date, safety guides are available in only three areas i.e., DIY, gardening and grocery retailing. On the other hand, the rapporteur deplores that in the furniture, cultural, leisure products, and sports gear retailing sectors, no standard guides are available.

 

a.      The Customer Safety Guide drafted by the Fédération des Magasins de Bricolage (FMB, the French federation of DIY stores)

This is the oldest safety guide since the first version dates back to 2001. The document was updated in 2004. It is now presented in a loose-leaf binder.

 

The guide is for DIY stores accounting for 3,000 sales outlets and 65,000 employees.

 

A Working Party of safety experts from the main names in DIY retailing drafted the guide whose purpose is, “to inform store managers and their associates about reported risks and their frequency, provide advice and suggestions for the rollout of efficient preventive measures.”

 

Besides the search for the ways and means to shield customers from physical hazards, the rollout of the tool has other goals, “It is important to build store personnel’s awareness of the costs borne by the company (increase of insurance policy premiums) when accidents occur too often. Rising costs cause lower corporate profitability, hence less profit sharing, and fewer bonuses or shares given to employees. In-store accidents also affect corporate image.”

 

According to FMB provided information, about 1,200 accidents were identified in 2004. Forty-six percent of personal injury accidents were due to ‘accidentally moving’ objects (falling products or furniture); 30% were caused by standing falls caused by floors in poor condition, obstructed aisles or poorly marked podiums; 13% stemmed from faulty operations and lack of maintenance of automatic access systems (automatic doors and gates); 11% were caused by sharp objects (tool blades, for instance) or contact with chemicals.

 

Since 2004, each member store has participated in a prevention and awareness building campaign organised by the parent federation and addressed to customers with a focus on children, the main accident victims in superstores.[8]

 

Published a few months after the FMB guide, the FNMJ consumer safety guide for store managers has the same goal, “With rising store attendance and high season flow management, awareness and necessity have prompted us to set up an expert committee to define the notion of public access areas and ensure our customers’ safety as they peruse our premises (….) It falls within our responsibility as entrepreneurs or store managers to use all the recommendations preventively, the minute they are received. This will surely limit accident risks. This will build your personnel’s awareness and train them to carry out well-thought out and responsible actions. (…)[9]

 

Unlike the FMB guide, it does not rely on the identification and analysis of accidents in garden centres. It has a ‘bolder’ purpose since, in addition to the recommendations common to the DIY guide, it provides instructions to prevent and manage fire hazards and the risk of customer panic, through appropriate personnel training. For instance, there is a judicious reminder to have easy-to-open emergency doors that open from the inside out. It is also advisable to make sure that access to emergency exits and circulation aisles is always unobstructed and quick and to check this several times a day.

 

The authorities are also urged to check with METEO France (the French weather bureau) if they suspect strong winds and storms that might suddenly disrupt the arrangement of the premises. Garden centres are often housed in areas with numerous ‘openings’ (windows, verandas and dormer windows) that can provide enough light to nurture plant life. So, the guide explains that, “skylights, vent lights, adverts and information hanging from the ceiling may be ripped off and carried away causing them to fall on people and property.”

 

 

This is the ‘youngest’ safety guide since it was circulated in late 2004. It is for wholesale distribution and - predominantly grocery - retailing ranging from local sales outlets in urban or rural areas to supermarkets and hypermarkets.

 

The document is based on the statistics of accidents requiring hospitalisation that occurred from 1986 to 1999. The statistics from the EHLASS system were collected by the Institut de Veille Sanitaire (InVS, health watch institute) at the request of the CSC .[11]

 

Accident breakdown was as follows,

 

- 56.4% concerned so-called ‘circulation’ accidents i.e., standing falls, falls on steps

- 20.5% were due to the use of handling equipment (trolleys, electric pallets and ladders)

- 12.5% were mechanical accidents causing blade injuries  (machinery and equipment or unprotected garden tools) or other types of injuries such as bumping into unprotected wire display fixtures for socks, nose-breaks due to automatic door malfunctions, injuries from spiny plants such as cacti, marbles swallowed by children

- 5.3% were caused by heavy products stored in high locations that tip over[12]

- 4.9% were caused by various unidentified objects

- 0.4% were due to physical contact with chemicals (damaged packaging that let product seep out, child swallowing liquid detergent)

 

The guide is broken down per hazard source found in the sales outlet. A descriptive sheet matches each hazard source. Each descriptive sheet includes,

 

- A description of the hazard source and possible consequences

- Rating of the risks incurred by the studied hazard source

- Testimonials and feedback

- A description of the causes and potential situation that might cause an accident

- The locations where accident might occur

- An non-exhaustive list of the preventive measures that should be implemented for risk control

- The ‘Good Practices’ that should be implemented

 

As we have seen, industry-specific guides are designed for the better management of the special features and constraints of a retailing sector. Understandably, customer protective measures against the risk of bites by hooked-beak birds or rodents in the pet department of a garden centre are of no use to hypermarket managers and conversely the protective panes around prepared dishes in the Food Department of a hypermarket to protect customers against burns are of no interest to garden centre managers.

 

However, the review of the three guides shows that the three sectors share more common factors than the special features underscored in the documents to warrant having industry-specific guides. Also, converging business means that the three sectors have marketing policies often involving the sale of similar products. For instance, aside from food which is still the prerogative of hypermarkets & supermarkets, plants or garden tools are sold by all three retailing sectors.

 

In the three guides, the solutions for dealing with the hazards common to the three sectors are not the same. This raises the issue of optimum safety in these stores. 

 

The table below highlights the similarities, differences and shortfalls of the risk prevention and remedial measures for hazards often common to the sectors, in the three guides.

 

 

 

 

It is of interest to assess whether the recommendations in the three guides are likely to provide appropriate responses to the incidents or accidents that some of the petitions have brought to the CSC’s knowledge.

 

1. Petitions 01-061, 02-038 and 02-039 concern faulty moving belts at checkout counters.

 

The FNMJ guide is the only one that provides for, “render hazardous equipment harmless and keep out of customers’ reach.”

 

2. Petitions 04-014 and 04-020 concern an injury to the larynx caused by a sales person’s retractable keyboard shelf on the one hand, and a serious eye injury due to an impact with the tip of a metallic shelf piled with books. Petition 05-037 concerns a small Plexiglas poster with protruding corners placed at an adult’s eye-level.

The guides’ ‘answers’ to the hazards of protruding corners found on product display stands are incomplete or ambiguous.

 

While the FMB guide advocates, “avoiding protruding corners on display equipment,” the FNMJ guide only makes the recommendations for display stands on pavement sales areas. The PERIFEM guide explains that, “protruding corners must be rounded or protected” without saying whether the recommendation effectively applies to display stands. In the end, the guide recommends the initiation of work on island display stand standardisation; clear proof that the issue of ‘making display stands safe’ goes beyond a mere recommendation.

 

Last, the three guides do not address the hazards of protruding promotional posters or small posters placed at ‘chest height’.

 

3. Petitions 04-050 and 04-56 underscore the problems pertaining to the proper understanding or shortfalls of some recommendations by the stores in the retailing sector.

 

The BAOBAB (petition no. 04-050, fall of an aquarium rock) banner store boasted of its scrupulous compliance with paragraph 2.5 of the FNMJ guide on the necessary precautions when putting heavy objects on display. Although the banner store undeniably complied with one of the recommendations in the guide i.e., that “the products must be located very near the ground or placed in a very stable position,” it neglected to take into consideration the next recommendation viz., “ensure the maintenance of the proper presentation of the products” that would have prompted the store not to fill the upper drawer to the top with rocks that might become off balance.

 

The toppling over of the tiling display panel that broke the child’s leg in the LEROY MERLIN store shows that if precise solutions for preventing the risk of falling objects are not mandatory, there is a greater risk that store authorities give preference to the least restrictive solution. The FMB guide recommends, “an attachment or marking of heavy objects on display” and suggests either bolting the objects or a film-wrapped palette display or roping off the display area with a gate or a chain; the ellipses at the end of the sentence suggesting that other options are feasible. Yet, in this case, bolting would have been the most effective solution considering the size (1 x 1m) and weight (30kg) of the goods, and considering the fact that the panel was tilted 38° and placed at a certain height off the ground. However, the panel was merely encased in a metallic frame.

 

The FNMJ guide suggests anchoring or bolting heavy objects and paying close attention to products placed higher than 0.60m. In the PERIFEM guide, products heavier than 10kg or bulky items must be stored in locations no higher than 1.20m and preferably on the ground and be “bolted, tied, anchored, or attached to fixed components.”

 

4. Petitions 05-031 and 05-017 deal with standing falls that are the leading source of customer accidents in hypermarkets and supermarkets, an area where the DGCCRF considers there is room for improvement.

 

Petition 05-031 (customer slipped on a cherry stone) raises the issue of the frequency and control of proper floor cleaning. On this point, the three guides have comparatively ‘targeted’ recommendations. The FNMJ guide is the most specific because it points to the ‘in-store’ locations with the highest accident potential for falls i.e., the “Florist’s Shop” where “flower waste should be collected and disposed of in the bins available to personnel.”

 

Surprisingly, the PERIFEM guide has no special recommendations for floor cleaning at the Fruit & Vegetable Department where the risk of falling on a lettuce leaf is substantial, enough so to warrant numerous claims. All that is said is that, “the proper cleaning of floors should be checked periodically” and that, “After spillage, breakage, etc. slippery areas must be roped off until designated personnel remedies situation,” a precaution that is not found in the other guides. The recommendations in the FMB guide are as general, recommending the “proper maintenance and cleaning of floors” and “the daily supervision of floors.”

 

Petition 05-017A (customer fell on a recently washed floor in a CARREFOUR hypermarket) underscores the hazards of the consequences of a cleaning operation.

 

The guides’ answers are disparate and some even conflict with banner store practices.

 

On operations by cleaning appliances, the PERIFEM guide rightly considers that, “floor cleaning should be done when public is not in-store (except for special operations after breakage or spillage; failing that, floor should be dried immediately after washing),” a recommendation far removed from actual practices. In its letter dated 4 May 2005, CARREFOUR explained that the use of mechanical cleaners is limited to “ off-peak business hours” and that spot operations are always possible. But during cleaning, the area where the floor is being cleaned is not marked and after washing, the floor is not immediately dried or roped off.

 

The FNMJ guide also takes into account risks due to slippery floors by establishing a performance and means requirement, “Floors should not be slippery in the public access area. Water on the floor is siphoned off with a squeegee or evacuated from the floor to prevent any risk of slipping.” However, there are no recommendations for the regular or spot use of floor cleaning appliances.

 

The recommendations in the FMB guide fall short. Without any other detail, they say that, “use of handling machines should be limited during business hours.”

 

 

The FMB guide has instructions in case of accident, specifically to “protect the victim until the emergency team arrives.” The content of a first-aid kit is summarily listed. Furthermore, a portable shower is recommended for chemical or fire burns. A civil liability accident report and an accident witness file also has to be completed

 

The FNMJ guide only mentions the emergency phone numbers. The content of the first-aid kit is defined. A file with an “straightforward, sincere and truthful report of the accident as it happened” has to be completed and a sketch of the accident appended.

 

The PERIFEM guide has neither instructions nor definition of the first-aid kit. However, banner store managers are asked to fill out a descriptive file per hazard source, which includes an accident witness report.

 

 

ON THE BASIS OF THIS DATA

 

Whereas the Opinion issued by the CSC on 7 February 2001 on consumer safety in commercial premises requesting that the public authorities draft regulations which are applicable to all retailing sectors and which define safety requirements for the display, circulation and handling of products, and that they draw up a service standard on ‘Customer service and safety in stores and showrooms” that said regulations would make mandatory;

 

Whereas, spurred and controlled by the administration, only the trade federations in charge of the DIY, gardening and grocery retailing sectors have put out industry-specific safety guides for their members, guides that are an important stage in risk prevention and control of the procedures rolled out by the banner stores;

 

Whereas, to preserve consumer safety, it has now become urgent for the public authorities to take initiatives building the safety awareness of other retailing sectors;

 

Whereas the comparative analysis of the three safety guides shows that the general obligation of diligence to prevent common risks and assist injured customers is different from one guide to the next;

 

Whereas harmonising and updating the guides are necessary;

 

Whereas ‘customer’ accident risk prevention should be taken into consideration during daily in-store routines, store operations, and the design stage for the new stores underway;

 

Whereas the priority project to draft an “operating standard” on customer safety will only be relevant if all retailing sectors commit to participating in its design and to complying with said standard;

 

Whereas, failing this consensus, the drafting of regulations setting down the essential requirements for customer safety can provide a solution;

 

Whereas, to measure the scope and changes of accidentology, the Institut de Veille Sanitaire should work closely with the relevant trade federations to conduct a statistical survey of the accidents involving customers in commercial premises;

 

Whereas the CSC can but encourage the rollout of consumer awareness building campaigns on the “proper conduct” in superstores, following the example of the FMB’s yearly campaign;

 

Whereas numerous petitions report the lack of attention paid to people injured in an accident;

 

After having heard Mrs. B, the representative of the Fédération des métiers du bricolage and Mr. T., the representative of the Association technique du commerce et de la distribution, in plenary session,

 

 

The Commission recommends that:

 

1.         The Public Authorities

-    Petition the Association française de normalisation (French agency for standardisation) and ask it to invite representatives from every retailing sector to participate in the development of several standards.

 

Give priority to:

 

-      A standard on store operations including a part on consumer information

as well as,

-      A standard on new store design

-      Standards on display products, i.e., display cases and stands, racks

 

If, regrettably, the standard on store operations does not receive the assent of the trade federations, the CSC can only encourage the public authorities to set down the safety requirements in regulations.

 

-       Ask the Institut de Veille Sanitaire to work with the trade federations to take a yearly census of the accidents occurring in commercial establishments; data should include the circumstances of the accidents, the products involved and consumer behaviour at time of accident, to have reliable, regularly updated data.

 

 

2.         The Trade federations

 

-       The three relevant organisations should conduct harmonisation and updating work on the currently available safety guides while opting to choose the ‘most comprehensive’ safety recommendations; the CSC would be available to participate in this effort

A “model safety guide” could be drafted and circulated to other retailing sectors (furniture, sports, cultural products, leisure, and so on) that have not deemed useful to engage similar work. Said guide could be developed with help from the public authorities and it could be circulated and used pending the publication of the above-mentioned standards.

 

-       Participate in the above-mentioned standardisation work

 

-       Make sure they communicate to store managers

 

         -     A reminder of the rules on attaching heavy and bulky objects and on heavy object handling by customers

        -      Specific rules on behaviour in case of accident (specifically by improving procedures providing assistance and comfort to the injured); the training of one or several employees in first-aid is highly advisable.

 

-       Launch or renew customer awareness building campaigns on “store hazards” with a special focus on children, with a view to accident prevention

 

-       Recommend that store authorities set up pictogram signage on accident risk prevention and, where appropriate, plan for ‘supervised play areas’ for young children.

 

-       Conduct a comprehensive yearly accident census

 

 

3.    The Parents

 

However, the Commission reminds parents that children should be closely watched in stores and specifically should not be allowed to run.

 

---