John Rinfret, managing director Balcan Engineering Limited, (which manufacture the BELL lifesaver) believes that this means another surge of interest in getting the 'most effective' equipment on hand, since individuals now have a vested interest in leaving a 'legal trail' that proves they have taken the most appropriate measures.

Despite seeming to get onto the bandwagon, there is a serious point to be made, sadly illustrated by a typical drowning tragedy which occurred in the early 1980’s on a frozen reservoir belonging to the North West Water Authority in Lancashire. Two boys had formed a slide on the ice which, when it broke, threw one of them into the icy water. The other ran to the office of the reservoir manager who was unable to achieve a rescue with the available lifebuoys because of their low range. At the inquest the Coroner severely criticised the NWWA for providing such limited safety equipment.

In the light of the Coroner’s criticism, Balcan (as a manufacturer of suitable equipment) sought Counsel’s Opinion about an employer's liability should a drowning occur out of reach of the lifesaving equipment provided. The Opinion stated that if the circumstances of the drowning could have been foreseen to indicate that the equipment provided was inappropriate and if other more appropriate lifesaving devices were readily available on the market with, for example, a longer reach, then liability on the part of the responsible organisation could be established.

This resulted in a surge of orders for the BELL units, which, despite a few flaws, such as slightly abrasive rope, has a 40m length and can be thrown much further than the traditional equipment. And despite being nearly a quarter of a century ago, the legal points remain essentially the same.

This in itself means that managers would do well to research the most appropriate forms of equipment for their own particular area of responsibility. Assumptions that the standard equipment is adequate could leave them in very deep water indeed.