Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —





 

— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_TopicIcon
Demolition Contractor Found Not Liable in Texas Wrongful Death and Employers' Liabili
February 15, 2007
8:34 AM
Avatar
Member
Forum Posts: 5298
Member Since:
August 29, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Alright I heard back from the lead attorney, Steven Grubbs, and he had this to say:

For your industry, I feel this case underscores the fact that training is important for two reasons: First, to make sure the worker knows how to do the job safely. Second, to help the contractor defend itself from second guessing when the unthinkable happens. This case was won because the contractor had an exemplary safety program, and the employee was highly trained in fall protection, but simply forgot/failed to tie off. If the contractor did not have such a sophisticated safety program, the outcome would have been different.

Here are the details of the case:

Facts & Allegations
On April 14, 2003, Larry Richard, a 45-year-old boilermaker was working on a demolition project for Alpha Technical Services in Austin, Texas demolishing a large fuel oil storage tank.

Richard had over 20 years of boilermaker experience but had only been on this job for two weeks. He and another co-worker were completing the demolition by using cutting torches to cut off the roof of the tank. However, they encountered a problem during demolition and decided to bring the tank down in a different way than originally planned without first consulting their supervisor on the change in plans.

After changing the procedure, Richard stepped on an unsecured piece of steel and fell 40 feet to his death. He had not attached his fall protection lanyard to the lifeline before the misstep.

Claiming unsafe work conditions and improper planning, the decedent's family sued Alpha Technical Services for gross neglect/malice under Tex. Labor Sec. 408.001(b).

The family also sued Mine Safety Appliances (harness manufacturer) and the City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energy Corporation (premises owner) who were all dismissed prior to trial. The case went forward against Alpha Technical Services where the plaintiffs' counsel argued that the fall protection equipment was insufficient for the job and was tampered with after the accident to substitute an appropriate fall protection lanyard.

Plaintiffs' counsel further argued that neither a written engineering survey nor detailed demolition plans were created prior to the demolition work.

Plaintiffs counsel also introduced evidence of OSHA citations given to the defendant.

Defense counsel contended that the equipment was appropriate for the job and was not tampered with. Several photographs of the accident were also taken by emergency personnel and law enforcement which showed that the equipment was appropriate.

Defendant introduced several training certificates from the Contractor's Safety Council documenting Richard's extensive training in fall protection, and argued that the provided equipment was in fact appropriate. Decedent's son and father both agreed that Mr. Richard was well trained in fall protection.

The defendant denied the plaintiffs' allegations that an engineering survey and a demolition plan were unavailable to the decedent and contended that the OSHA citations were unrelated to the fatality.

February 14, 2007
8:58 AM
Avatar
Member
Forum Posts: 5298
Member Since:
August 29, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

John,

I am having trouble finding anything about the actual accident. I have sent an e-mail today to the attorneys who handled the case and hopefully I will hear something back. I will post anything I find out.

February 9, 2007
11:23 AM
Avatar
Member
Forum Posts: 817
Member Since:
January 12, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I for one am glad to see that OSHA is recognizing that safety is not only the responsibility of the company but of the individual, regardless of the company's safety history.

February 9, 2007
8:43 AM
Avatar
Member
Forum Posts: 5298
Member Since:
August 29, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I am on the road today. I will look into what I can find out this weekend.

February 8, 2007
12:19 PM
Avatar
Member
Forum Posts: 55
Member Since:
June 29, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

James,

This is interesting. I would love to see more information on this. It is rare to see an employee held responsible for his own actions. Usually the contractor gets hammered, even though they may be doing the right thing. I do feel for the worker and his family, it's always tragic to hear about someone losing their life just trying to make an honest living.

February 8, 2007
7:19 AM
Avatar
Member
Forum Posts: 5298
Member Since:
August 29, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A Travis County (Austin, Texas) jury deliberated for only three hours before finding that a Houston-based demolition contractor was not liable for the wrongful death of an employee. The employee had been hired as a boilermaker to assist in demolishing the roof of a large fuel oil storage tank. During the removal of the roof, the employee stepped on a previously cut section of steel, and fell 40 feet to his death. The employee had neglected to attach his fall protection lanyard to the lifeline moments before the fall.

The Plaintiffs (the employee's children) filed suit under Texas Labor Code Sec. 408.001(b), for gross negligence and malice, seeking exemplary damages against the contractor in a so-called employers' liability claim. After almost 8 days of testimony, the jury decided there was no gross negligence or malice involved and rendered their verdict for the defense.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the demolition contractor failed to create a written engineering survey prior to commencing demolition operations. They also contended that OSHA cited the company for several violations of OSHA standards that demonstrated an overall lack of concern for safety with respect to its employees.

Defendant countered that the OSHA violations were unrelated to the fatality, and that an engineering survey was performed in accordance with the OSHA standards. Furthermore, the defense argued that the deceased employee was solely responsible for the accident for failing to utilize his fall protection equipment. The decedent was a 20-year veteran boilermaker who, according to both his own son and father, had demolished several similar tanks throughout his career. Moreover, in records collected from the Contractors Safety Council, he had received training in fall protection every year from 1998 through 2003, the year of the accident.

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 429

Currently Online:
72 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

James: 5298

demobud: 817

Robert Kulinski: 573

1Pyro: 548

autoparter: 534

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 54

Members: 3042

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 17

Topics: 20032

Posts: 28266

Administrators: JOHN: 7602, John: 7030

Skip to toolbar