Writing the Wet-Floor Entry in the Incident Register
At 3:15 p.m. on a humid afternoon, a visitor carrying a shopping bag walks past the water cooler near Gate 2 of an RBI office. The cooler's inlet pipe has been leaking since morning and the floor is wet, although no warning sign has been placed. The visitor's foot slides, he drops the bag, and he grazes his left elbow against the door frame. He is able to stand, refuses first aid and says he is fine. The guard on duty, Prakash, helps him to a chair and calls the shift supervisor, who arrives at 3:20 p.m. Mopping is completed at 3:35 p.m. and a 'Wet Floor' sign is finally placed.
The incident register requires a short factual entry covering the time, the place, what happened, whether anyone was injured, the action taken and who was informed. Prakash's rough notes read: '3.15 pm visitor which was carrying bag slip near gate no. 2 because water was leaking from cooler, no injury was happen, I inform supervisor, place mopped 3.35.'
1. Which of these sentences is grammatically correct and suitable for the register? (i) The visitor was slipped near Gate 2 due to water on the floor. (ii) The visitor slipped near Gate 2 because of water on the floor. (iii) The visitor had slipped near Gate 2 because water was there on floor. (iv) Water was there and visitor slipped.
Read the worked answer
Answer: (ii).
Why (i) fails: 'slip' is an intransitive verb - it takes no object and therefore has no passive form. 'Was slipped' would mean somebody slipped the visitor, which is not what happened. This is a classic error in Indian official writing and it changes the meaning of the sentence.
Why (iii) fails: the past perfect 'had slipped' is used for the earlier of two past events, and there is no second event here to anchor it. The register records one completed event, so the simple past 'slipped' is correct. The article is also missing before 'floor'.
Why (iv) fails: it is two clauses joined loosely with 'and', has no article before 'visitor', and reads as casual speech rather than record.
Why (ii) works: simple past for a completed event, the intransitive verb used correctly, a proper noun capitalised, and 'because of' followed by a noun phrase. It states cause and result in one readable sentence, which is exactly what an incident register needs.
2. Rewrite Prakash's rough notes as a single formal register entry, and explain the corrections you made.
Read the worked answer
Suggested entry: 'At 3:15 p.m., a visitor carrying a shopping bag slipped near Gate 2 owing to water leaking from the water cooler. He grazed his left elbow and declined first aid. The shift supervisor was informed at 3:20 p.m. and arrived shortly after. The area was mopped and a Wet Floor sign was placed at 3:35 p.m.'
Corrections and the reason for each:
- 'which' → 'carrying'. 'Which' cannot refer to a person; and the reduced form reads more cleanly than 'who was carrying'.
- 'slip' → 'slipped'. The verb must agree with the past-time narrative.
- 'gate no. 2' → 'Gate 2'. Registers use the standard post name; 'no.' is redundant and informal.
- 'because water was leaking' → 'owing to water leaking'. Tighter, and it names the actual cause (the leak) rather than the water's presence.
- 'no injury was happen' → 'grazed his elbow and declined first aid'. The original is ungrammatical, and it is also inaccurate: an injury did occur, it was simply minor and untreated.
- 'I inform' → 'the shift supervisor was informed'. Past tense, and the impersonal passive suits a register better than first person.
The entry is now factual, chronological and free of opinion.
3. Which closing line belongs in the register, and why are the other two unsuitable? (A) Everything is now okay. (B) The area was made safe and the incident was reported to the shift supervisor. (C) Nothing serious happened, sir.
Read the worked answer
Answer: (B). It states the two facts a reader needs - the hazard was removed and the matter was escalated - and it does so without evaluating the outcome.
(A) is unsuitable because 'okay' is a judgement, not a record. A later reader cannot tell what was actually done, when, or by whom. A register that records conclusions rather than actions is useless in an enquiry.
(C) is unsuitable for two reasons. 'Nothing serious' minimises an incident that did cause an injury and a hazard that existed for hours, and such wording can be read later as an attempt to play down the event. Addressing the register to 'sir' also makes it a personal message rather than an official record, which is the wrong register entirely.
The underlying principle: an incident entry should describe what was observed and what was done, never how bad it seemed. Words such as 'minor', 'nothing serious' and 'okay' belong to conversation, not to a document that may be produced months later.