APPENDIX A-1
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Superior Court, Maricopa County, AZ, #228130 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: April 4, 1968
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1970
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A crawler latticework crane used to lower four-foot diameter concrete culvert sections in order to construct a surface water drainage system down the center of a highway.
HAZARD: Inadequate clearance for top of the boom from a 7200 V overhead powerline which was mid-span in the center of the highway and provided no visual clues on the ground to warn of an overhead powerline.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Pre-job planning overlooked the presence of a single-phase powerline that extended across the highway to power a well. During construction, the district service linemen for the utility passed the construction activity four times a day and was aware of the danger, even gave one oral warning an hour prior to the contact, but did not temporarily disconnect the power for the period that the crane would be used under the powerline. The injured worker was in the trench releasing the lifting hook from a culvert section and the boom, which was nearly parallel to the ground, was raised approximately three feet into the powerline upon the release of tension. The injured sustained a loss of his right arm and other mutilations.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION: The pre-job planning with the investor-owned utility failed to identify this powerline crossing for removal and provide an underground conduit, which was a pay item for the other powerlines. The utility district service lineman had not been instructed to de-energize the powerline whenever a powerline contact was imminent. The contractor was unaware of the availability of insulated links. As an employer, he was immune to liability.
DISPOSITION: On June 13, 1973, a trial was held by agreement before a judge without a jury. As workers' compensation benefits were inadequate to support the disabled and the injured’s family, the judge ruled in behalf of the injured because the utility had failed to de-energize the powerlines while aware of imminent danger.
NOTES: This case has become a landmark, as it was one of the very few first litigations that addressed liability of third parties as a defendant who could have eliminated the hazard. The issue of the adequacy of workers’ compensation benefits and social security is identified here to show that injury litigation arises to approportion to other parties who had the ability to prevent injury yet failed to act. This information generally applies to the other case studies in this appendix.
APPENDIX A-2
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U. S. Court, Oklahoma City, OK, # CJ-70-2177 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1970
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1970
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A house moving activity requiring it being placed on an extra-wide lowboy trailer towed by a tow truck through the city streets
HAZARD: Inadequate clearance from the house rooftop to powerlines
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: A city moving permit required assistance of the electric utility companies to raise the powerlines when clearance was inadequate. The utility personnel failed to appear as agreed. The deceased was electrocuted when he positioned himself on the roof and attempted to raise the powerline several inches with a stick to allow passage of the house underneath.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ The utility company failed to arrive at the worksite at the agreed time. Clearly, a stronger communication and commitment is needed by both the employer and the utility.
♦ The electric utility company should have lifted the powerlines for this circumstance.
DISPOSITION: Settled in 1976 for the deceased.
NOTES: This case was listed as representative of other occurrences, as well as to show the wide diversity of foreseeable construction activities which result in contacts with powerlines. It also shows the vital importance of good communication and
understanding between house moving construction company and the electric utility.
APPENDIX A-3
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Illinois Appellate Court # 59549 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 20, 1970
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1974: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A 50-foot latticework boom crane mounted on a truck, working adjacent to a 34,500 volt powerline 35 feet above the ground.
HAZARD: Crane boom was raised directly into an overhead powerline, which was mid-span between power poles with no ground clues to alert workers to the danger zone created by the powerline.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: On July 20, 1970, at approximately 9:00 am, a pipefitter was killed and two others permanently injured. One worker, after eight days in the hospital, lost his right hand and forearm through the necessity of amputation. By the first week of August, both legs were also amputated. In addition, the injury caused by electric shock required four operations to remove cataracts from each eye, leaving him industrially blind. A year after the accident, all of his teeth had to be removed because of the poor dental hygiene while hospitalized for skin grafts. The incident occurred while the victim was guiding a pipe over an eight-foot cyclone fence in order to reload the pipe on another truck. The boom struck the powerline as it was being raised from a 40-degree angle to a 70-degree angle. Both landowner and power company had keys to the gate of the enclosed area, rendering the lift unnecessary. If the keys had been utilized, the entire cause of the powerline contact would have been eliminated.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ The landowner should have ensured access to the worksite to avoid unloading and reloading of the pipe over a fence, under a powerline.
♦ The power company was aware of 12 previous crane powerline contacts and should have avoided this unsafe loading process and made safety planning a priority.
♦ The crane manufacturer was aware of insulated links and boom cages (a wrap-around insulated frame that prevents direct contact of powerline to a boom) as well as electrostatic proximity alarms. They had not tested any of them, nor made an attempt to advise crane users of their availability.
♦ It was agreed by both the Power Company and the crane manufacturer that it is difficult to precisely judge the distance between the boom tip and wires from any vantage point when looking into the sun.
Therefore, the above listed devices could have prevented the boom powerline contact and resulting death and maiming injuries.
DISPOSITION: The trial court issued a directed verdict in behalf of the plaintiff, which was affirmed in 1978 by the Illinois Appellate Court.
NOTES: This case includes the trial testimony of Bob Jenkins, who retired in 1964 as Chief of Safety for the entire U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after some 30 years with the agency. In his career, he was aware of a history of some seven hundred crane powerline contacts, experienced worldwide by Army Corps of Engineers on their construction projects. His testimony included that the original clearance of six feet did not appear adequate, so he raised the Corps standard to ten feet and found that this additional clearance (of thin air) did not reduce the occurrence of crane boom powerline contact. Additionally, he also developed requirements in the Corps of Engineers for the use of link and boom cages, all of which are included in this study’s Timeline.
This historical information revealed a pattern of circumstances that is consistent with powerline contacts. The pattern needs to be broken by examining the specific causes that invite the crane operating personnel to be entrapped by a dangerous worksite.
(Refer to the 1978 Commerce Clearinghouse, Inc., court reporting service, section 8175).
APPENDIX A-4
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Missouri Circuit Court, Jackson City, # CV75-0950 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1973
DATE CASE FILED: 1975
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY/ETC: An insulated utility lineman’s aerial lift as defined in ANSI A92.2: Vehicle Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices, with specifications for “Insulating devices” was being used with a small metal jib boom attached to the lineman’s basket, which was not isolated by insulation from an uninsulated control handle.
HAZARD: A phase to phase fault path for the operator in the lineman’s bucket when undertaking live hot line work. The boom of the equipment touches a live wire, which energizes the vehicle but does not allow for a ground fault circuit. When the utility lineman contacts a different wire, the current energizing the vehicle flows through him from the first wire into the second, seriously burning him in the process.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The lineman lost several fingers when the boom was presumed insulated and it brushed against one of three conductors on a power pole crossarms. The operator was using the boom to lift a transformer and made a fault current from the phase to phase when he brushed against a powerline with the boom when using the uninsulated control handle.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ Absent was complete insulation in a non-conductive boom jib and insulated control handle.
♦ No warnings of the hazard or advising use of rubber gloves when positioning the aerial lifts.
DISPOSITION: Settled on February 7, 1978, in behalf of the plaintiff.
NOTES: This was the first of a number of such instances in which the jury was presented with expert testimony by the defense witness that the use of insulation is not a reasonable safeguard, as it promotes operator inattention. Several years later this company initiated a retrofit program to provide insulation on older models and started to include insulation as standard on newer machines. No design standards address this hazard.
APPENDIX A-5
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, El Paso County, CO, 80CV2309 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1974
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1981
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A straddle crane approximately 20 feet tall with dimensions of 30 by 40 feet.
HAZARD: Straddle crane of sufficient height to reach the 7200 V powerlines and blind zones; the operator is unable to see overhead obstructions when traveling, and the point of contact was mid-span, offering no clear view of either supporting power pole to warn of imminent danger.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The injured was severely burned when while holding a shackle to attach a load to the lifting beam, the operator backed the straddle crane into a powerline that crossed the work area of an outdoor plant.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION: The removal of overhead powerlines from areas where high clearance equipment is used. (See National Electric Code
interpretations), which provides no safe clearance for high clearance equipment. An insulated non-conductive lifting beam assembly and the use of an electrostatic proximity alarm to warn when powerlines are being approached. There needs to be a closer inter-dependence of communication between utility companies and
industrial work sites.
DISPOSITION: Settlement in behalf of the injured.
NOTES: This was the first of several occurrences where high-clearance overhead straddle cranes struck overhead powerlines.
APPENDIX A-6
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Henry County, IN # 77-C-470 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 30, 1975
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1976
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A mobile rough terrain, 18-ton hydraulic crane with a
telescoping boom, being used to construct a water treatment plant. Powerlines had not been removed from the work area.
HAZARD: Crane hoist line contact with 7,200 V powerline, as the work area for the crane violated the danger zone.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The foreman lost feet and hands while guiding materials being unloaded from a truck and the hoist line struck a 13,800 V powerline.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ Remove the powerlines from the construction area before work commences.
♦ Use of insulated link and electrostatic proximity alarm as a backup safeguard.
♦ Provide users with instructions on how to map the danger zone created by the powerline.
DISPOSITION: A jury verdict was decided in behalf of the injured. Case appealed and upheld by Appellate Court.
NOTES: Dr. Middendorf was the first psychologist to present testimony of inaccuracies of visual estimates of crane boom or hoist clearances from powerlines.
APPENDIX A-7
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Merced, CA DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 14, 1975 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1976
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Auger/Agricultural feed truck with a boom used to fill a feed bin at a dairy farm.
HAZARD: Powerlines were strung immediately next to the feed bin, where weekly
deliveries are made and operator is required to stand on the ground operating boom controls. The bin should have been located outside the danger zone created by the powerlines.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Feed-truck delivery man electrocuted while positioning a conductive auger boom to load the feed bin and struck a powerline.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ Electric utility improvement district should have coordinated a relocation of the powerlines with the landowner (farmer), to provide for safe feed-bin loading.
♦ The controls for controlling the feed truck boom should be totally non-conductive to prevent a ground fault current flow.
♦ The boom of the feed truck should consist of non-conductive materials
DISPOSITION: Case was settled for the injured in 1975.
NOTES: This case was listed to show the variety of equipment which is capable of making powerline contact and the need for a greater coordination of hazard identification between the electric utility and the property owners. Further, the operator’s station should be designed so the operator cannot operate the controls when standing on the ground.
APPENDIX A-8
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: McAllan, TX DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 11, 1976 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1978
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A portable (wheel mounted) small Auger conveyor used to load round, 20 foot tall, corrugated grain storage bins. These portable small Augers can be rolled from one area to another to load grain dumped on the ground. The work area included a 7,200 V powerline.
HAZARD: This upraised conveyor could be rolled into an overhead powerline. The powerlines and grain bins instantly create a hazard when they are close to each other, regardless of the use of boomed equipment. No equipment should penetrate the powerline danger zone.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Two men were electrocuted and one seriously injured while they were moving the elevating auger to position in order to load another bin.
They misjudged the clearance and the boom struck the powerline.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ The rural Electric Cooperative should have coordinated powerline location with the farmer to ensure that it did not pose a danger of conflict with portable auger elevators.
♦ Design of these augers should incorporate an insulating plastic sleeve on the upper portion of the portable elevator to prevent injury in the event of powerline contact.
DISPOSITION: Settled in 1985 with ample lifetime provision for the two widows.
NOTES: This case was included because it addresses a dire need for electric cooperatives to work with their member owners to eliminate hazardous powerline locations. It is also a reminder that no elevating vehicle is exempt from the hazard of powerline contact.
APPENDIX A-9
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Superior Court, King County, Seattle, WA # 827915 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: April 13, 1977
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1982
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A utility lineman’s mounted rotating aerial insulated lift, used to work on energized powerlines.
HAZARD: A phase to phase contact, which often involves utility linemen in aerial lifts with uninsulated parts.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The Electric Utility Lineman lost both arms, which had to be surgically removed at the shoulders as the aerial lift insulation had been compromised when insulated hydraulic hoses were replaced with steel re-enforced conductive hoses in order to overcome the frequent rupture of non-conductive hoses. Maintenance personnel were not provided adequate information in the maintenance manual nor specific warnings for the type of authorized
manufacturer’s hoses that were to be used.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ Parts and components specifically designed to overcome a specific hazard should include a permanent warning label to ensure that maintenance personnel are aware of the inherent hazards and danger of the use of unauthorized components.
♦ The manufacturers should identify critical parts with a warning system for design review to ensure for product safe maintainability.
DISPOSITION: 1978 verdict in behalf of the injured.
NOTES: These lineman’s aerial lifts were the subject of previous litigation concerning lack of design insulation (see A-4), and this case serves to reveal yet another lack of insulation failure mode.
APPENDIX A-10
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Cook County, Chicago, IL # 78L 15211 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 6, 1977
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: July 31, 1978
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rental crane with a latticework boom being used to place gravel along a freeway.
HAZARD: The presence of 7,200 volt powerlines parallel to the work area. The point of contact was mid-span between the power poles.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The rental crane was backing into the powerline and the pinup guylines that support the latticework boom contacted the powerline. The workman who was in front of the crane guiding the gravel bucket was electrocuted.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ Pre-job planning to identify adequate space to position the crane with its back to the powerline.
♦ Use of an insulated link on the hoist line would have interrupted the flow of current to the worker.
♦ Use of an electrostatic proximity alarm would have provided warning the powerline was being approached from the rear of the crane.
DISPOSITION: Case settled in behalf of the family of the deceased.
NOTES: The crane rental firm was aware of the location close to powerlines where the crane was intended to be used and did not offer or provide an insulated link or proximity device. During litigation, the crane manufacturer and rental council presented several witnesses who speculated that the insulated link and electrostatic proximity alarm could not have prevented the death of the worker.
APPENDIX A-11
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: 250th Judicial District, Travis City, TX # 279080 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: September 21, 1977
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1980
EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rental mobile hydraulic crane with a telescoping boom working at a construction site adjacent to 7,200 V powerlines.
HAZARD: Hoist line struck the powerline somewhere mid-span between the supporting power poles.
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: One man was killed and two seriously burned when guiding a load to be lifted. The hoist line struck the powerline when it cleared the ground. The crane rental firm was aware that the crane would be used in close proximity to powerlines, but did not offer to equip the crane with safety appliances nor deny use of the crane to the construction firm.
AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:
♦ The storage area of construction materials underneath the powerline was unsafe.
♦ Pre-construction planning would have identified an unsafe construction operating area for cranes, therefore the “Danger Zone” would be breached only with special caution.
♦ An insulated link would have interrupted the flow of current, preventing the loss of life and the injuries of two men.
♦ Use of an electrostatic proximity alarm would have certainly ensured for greater worker awareness of a serious life-taking hazard.
♦ The crane rental company should have denied rental of the crane to be used in such a dangerous location or equipped the crane with an insulated link and proximity alarm.
DISPOSITION: Settlement in behalf of the deceased and injured.
NOTES: This case introduces the need to prohibit storage of construction material under or adjacent to powerlines. This is also a case where defense presented several
witnesses who speculated that the use of insulated links and proximity alarms could not have prevented the death and injuries.
APPENDIX A-12
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U.S. Federal Court, Eastern District, Philadelphia, PA
COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U.S. Federal Court, Eastern District, Philadelphia, PA