Contact us

Falls from height and same-level falls: why does this trivialised risk remain the leading cause of serious workplace accidents ?

By the C2D Prévention CSI team, the safety culture and physical risk prevention division of the C2D group.

A ladder you climb “for just two minutes” without securing it. A wet floor you walk across while thinking about something else. A stepladder used “the way we always do” instead of the platform provided for the job. These are rarely spectacular events. And that is precisely what makes them so dangerous.

Every year, the French National Health Insurance covers around 126,000 workplace accidents caused by a fall. That figure, stable for several years now, places falls — from height and at ground level combined — as the second leading cause of workplace accidents in France, and the third leading cause of workplace fatalities. And yet, in most companies, this risk is still seen as secondary, almost mundane, trailing far behind chemical hazards, dangerous machinery or psychosocial risks in stated priorities.

It is precisely this gap between work-as-prescribed and work-as-done — between how often the risk actually materialises and the place it is given on paper — that deserves a closer look.

A massive risk, but a poorly perceived one

The figures from the National Health Insurance – Occupational Risks branch leave no room for doubt:

  • Nearly 6 out of 10 fall-related workplace accidents are same-level falls (slips, trips, loss of balance on a flat surface) — not falls from a roof or from scaffolding, but falls at ground level.
  • Falls from height account for roughly 10 to 12% of all workplace accidents, and up to 45% of accidents in the construction sector alone.
  • Falls, all causes combined, lead to absences twice as long as the average (more than 70 days on average) and account for close to a third of the most serious permanent disabilities.
  • The average cost of a fall-related absence reaches around €3,700, roughly a third more than the average across all accident types.
  • In one in five fatal falls from height, a ladder or stepladder is involved.

In other words: what kills most often is not some exceptional peak of activity on a worksite, but the improvised use of an everyday piece of equipment, in a situation the person carrying out the task considers “perfectly safe”.

This is the subject INRS puts back on the table this month, in its July–August 2026 feature devoted to falls from height and same-level falls, with prevention solutions broken down sector by sector: road transport, industry, worksite preparation, logistics, and single-family home construction. These figures are consistent with the broader trends set out in our article on Work Accidents & Occupational Diseases 2024: Key Figures, Causes, and Actions.

Why does this risk keep flying under the radar?

1. Because the rules already exist — but aren't always followed in the field

Regulations on working at height flow directly from the general principles of prevention: collective protection takes priority over personal protective equipment, ladder use is tightly restricted (limited to short-duration tasks, following a risk assessment), and training obligations apply. The prescribed framework is solid.

So the problem is rarely a legal vacuum. It is a gap in execution: the ladder that stays in use because “it’s quicker”, the harness that stays in the van because the job “only takes ten minutes”, the mobile work platform nobody bothered to unload for a task judged too short to be worth it. The same gap between work-as-prescribed and work-as-done that shows up across so many other work situations.

2. Because same-level falls are perceived as "harmless"

This is perhaps the most counter-intuitive point in the statistics: most fall-related accidents don’t come from height, but from the floor itself. A badly stowed cable, a box left in an aisle, a slippery floor in a kitchen or a storage area. This type of risk fits none of the “spectacular” boxes in the risk assessment document — so it is systematically underestimated, even though it alone accounts for nearly 6 out of 10 accidents in this category.

3. Because experience creates a false sense of control

An operator who has been climbing ladders for fifteen years without incident no longer perceives the danger the way a newcomer does. This isn’t recklessness: as we explained in Why Your Best Operators Are Sometimes the Most Exposed to Accidents, it is a well-documented cognitive phenomenon, in which repetition without incident gradually reinforces the conviction that the “lightened” procedure works. Until the day circumstances change — a different floor surface, a heavier load, end-of-day fatigue — and the absence of any safety margin becomes visible at the worst possible moment. It is often the best operators who end up the most exposed to accidents, precisely because they have the most confidence in their own routine.

What the law concretely expects from employers

Beyond the statistics, falls from height occupy a particular place in litigation over faute inexcusable (the employer’s inexcusable fault under French law). Case law is consistent on this point: the employer is held to a reinforced duty of care that requires assessing fall risks — including for very short interventions — and drawing the appropriate conclusions in terms of equipment, training and employee information.

The courts have made clear that an employer who lets teams use a non-compliant ladder or stepladder, or who fails to provide sufficient training and information on the equipment supplied, exposes itself to a finding of inexcusable fault — even where the equipment provided was not itself defective. What is judged is not only the equipment, but the prevention approach as a whole: was the risk identified, were employees trained, were measures put in place that genuinely fit the real work situation — and not merely the theoretical one?

This is where the subject goes beyond the purely technical question (guardrails, harnesses, platforms) and becomes a question of safety culture: compliant equipment that goes unused, for lack of time or out of habit, protects no one — and does not exempt the company from liability.

What can actually be done?

HSE team wearing PPE conducting a collective safety audit with a tablet in an industrial workshop to assess fall risks

A few levers, following the “diagnose before you equip” logic:

  • Map the real friction points, not just the theoretical risks. Out in the field, where do employees actually work around procedures — and why? A risk assessment document that lists fall hazards without understanding why the ladder remains the “default” solution will change nothing about behaviour. (Internal link: EN version of “Écart entre le prescrit et le réel : pourquoi la remontée de signaux terrain est essentielle à la sécurité au travail ?” — to be added once published.)
  • Treat same-level falls as seriously as falls from height. Housekeeping, lighting, floor condition, traffic-flow and clutter management: these are low-cost, high-impact measures that remain widely under-invested relative to their real weight in accident figures.
  • Invest in field signal reporting. A ladder used “as a stopgap”, access at height without collective protection for lack of time: these are weak signals that, once reported and acted on, make it possible to intervene before the accident rather than after — provided your safety indicators genuinely reflect what happens in the field.
  • Don’t confuse regulatory training with a risk culture. Training an employee to use a harness is necessary; understanding why they won’t use it in certain circumstances — time pressure, habit, a sense of mastery — is what makes it possible to shift behaviour for good, through BBS (Behavior-Based Safety).

What C2D Prévention offers on these topics

  • Think Before You Act workshop (LMRA): an awareness workshop designed to embed the reflex of analysing before acting — particularly relevant to the at-risk behaviours described above (the “default” ladder, access at height without collective protection for lack of time, and so on).
  • Neuroscience and Risks conference: understanding how the brain works (automatic behaviours, blind spots, attention management) in order to better prevent distraction and same-level falls.
  • Shared Vigilance workshop: understanding the mechanisms of attention and distraction, and spotting weak signals before the accident.

In summary

Falls from height and same-level falls are not an “exotic” risk reserved for construction or work-at-height trades: they are a cross-cutting risk affecting every sector, the vast majority of which occurs at ground level, in situations perceived as trivial. The rules exist. It is the gap between those rules and what actually happens in the field — hour after hour, task after task — that keeps this risk as the second leading cause of workplace accidents in France.

Key takeaways

  • Falls (from height and at ground level) are the 2nd leading cause of workplace accidents and the 3rd leading cause of workplace fatalities in France, with around 126,000 accidents covered each year.
  • Nearly 6 out of 10 fall-related accidents are same-level falls — a risk perceived as benign and widely underestimated in the risk assessment document.
  • Falls from height account for 10 to 12% of all workplace accidents, and up to 45% in construction.
  • Fall-related absences last 70 days on average, twice the all-accident average, at an average cost of €3,700 per absence.
  • The regulatory framework is already solid (priority to collective protection, strict limits on ladder use): the real problem is almost always a gap in execution in the field, not a legal vacuum.
  • In the event of an accident, the employer is judged on its entire prevention approach (risk assessment, training, measures actually implemented) — compliant equipment that goes unused offers no protection against a finding of inexcusable fault.
  • The most effective levers: treat ground-level falls as seriously as falls from height, map the real workarounds happening in the field, and keep weak-signal reporting alive rather than simply displaying indicators.

FAQ

What is the difference between a fall from height and a same-level fall? A fall from height involves a change of level: it concerns people working at height (roof, scaffolding, ladder, stepladder) or at the edge of a floor opening (hoistway, trench, pit). A same-level fall occurs on a flat surface — a slip, a trip, a loss of balance — with no change of level. Contrary to popular belief, it is the same-level fall that is statistically the more frequent.

From what height do the regulations apply? There is no minimum height threshold set by regulation or case law: the obligation to assess the risk and put preventive measures in place applies as soon as a risk of falling exists, including for very short interventions.

Can an employer be held liable even if the employee misused the equipment? Potentially, yes. Case law holds that the employer remains liable if it failed to adequately inform, train or supervise the use of the equipment, even where that equipment was not itself defective. It is the prevention approach as a whole (assessment, training, resources) that is examined in an inexcusable fault claim.

Is ladder use prohibited in the workplace? No, but it is tightly restricted: a ladder may only be used where collective protective equipment cannot be used instead, and solely for short-duration tasks, following a prior risk assessment. It must also be compliant (anti-slip devices, secured stability).

Why are same-level falls so often overlooked in the risk assessment document? Because they are perceived as minor, unavoidable accidents with no apparent connection to a “risk” in the classic sense of the word. Yet they represent the leading cause of fall-related accidents and can cause serious injury, and even death — notably through impact with a dangerous object during the fall.

Further reading

Browse all our articles on the C2D Prévention Blog.

Sources