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.

__________________
Still just visiting? Come say Hello!