Metrolink in California and Connex Railroad are offering a $200 million settlement to victims and families in connection with the Sept. 12, 2008, crash between a commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train. The crash killed 25 and injured more than 100. There are 76 lawsuits filed against the railroad companies.

Paul Kiesel, the coordinating attorney for all the lawsuits in the case says the $200 million offer isn’t enough.

Kiesel says some victims already have medical bills that total six or seven figures.

Example: Construction worker Curtis Whitney suffered spinal injuries in the crash. He had no insurance and has undergone multiple surgeries. His medical bills already total $600,000.

The $200 million offered is the liability cap allowed under federal law in passenger rail incidents.

The cap was set in law by Congress.

U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), in whose district many of the victims live, said he probably will introduce legislation that could adjust the liability cap.

Kiesel points to what BP has done regarding the Gulf oil disaster and claims the payouts can and should exceed the liability caps. BP could have stayed within a $75 million cap, but it put up $20 billion to pay for damages caused by the gusher.

The train crash was caused by a contract Metrolink engineer, employed by Connex, who ran a red light while text-messaging, according to an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. Metrolink now employs Amtrak as its operating contractor.

Should the cap be raised in the Metrolink case? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

Washington DC’s Metro public transit system is installing cameras on its entire fleet of 1,500 buses to monitor bus driver performance and improve safety.

The new cameras constantly record when the buses are running. When a driver makes any extreme movement — a sharp turn or a quick stop — the cameras capture the eight seconds before the incidents and the four seconds after. The video and audio are also automatically downloaded from the bus.

“Because the operator knows the camera will be watching him or her, they will try to minimize the times the system is triggered, and it will lead them to be more alert,” said Metro assistant manager Jack Requa.

The cameras will be very sensitive. Even driving over a pothole could trigger recording.

Metro has contracted with DriveCam which will analyze data from any incidents for Metro.

The system is also expected to help reduce damage to buses, workers’ compensation claims and injuries.

The head of the bus drivers’ union didn’t object to the cameras but said they too narrowly focused on driver skills.

Do you think the driver cams will help improve safety? You can leave a comment below.

A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) final report on the June 22, 2009, Metro train crash says it was due to chronic track circuit failures and a negligent attitude toward safety. The crash killed a driver and eight passengers and injured scores of others.

NTSB members said safety wasn’t made a priority by the senior management or board of directors of the public transit agency. Metro’s chairman hadn’t included safety oversight in the board’s mission statement.

NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman noted that Metro hadn’t implemented many previous NTSB recommendations. “They are not hearing it, they are not getting it and they are not addressing the problems,” Hersman said. “Our frustration is that if they don’t listen this time, I am not sure what can be done.”

Metro’s interim General Manager Richard Sarles said he’d “carefully consider” the NTSB recommendations. Sarles stopped short of saying Metro would implement the recommendations in the final report.

When an investigation into workplace deaths shows a lack of attention to safety at the top of an organization, how should top managers be held accountable? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

William Jackson, a 19-year-old DC resident, recently walked into a Metro bus yard in full driver uniform, got into a bus, drove off and picked up passengers on the B2 route.

The passengers didn’t suspect their driver was an impostor, until he crashed the bus into a tree and several cars four miles into the route.

Jackson fled but was later arrested. He faces charges of unauthorized use of a vehicle and fleeing an accident.

A spokesman with the Metro Transit Police Department said Jackson simply had a fascination with buses.

This incident is the latest in a series of safety problems for DC’s Metro, including bus drivers striking pedestrians, workers being seriously hurt or killed, and a deadly subway crash that led the Federal Transit Administration to issue scathing safety criticism of the public transit system in the nation’s capital.

Metro says work is underway to enhance security at its facilities.

That scenario has cost a company in Washington state $2.7 million.

The horse had been hit and killed by an employee driving a utility bucket truck owned by Sprint’s subsidiary, United Telephone Co. of the Northwest. The driver said he left the scene to get help. It was after sunset, and the road was dark.

A car Nanette Aurdal was driving struck the dead horse. An eyewitness said Aurdal’s car became airborne before crashing back to the pavement.

Aurdal sustained a full-body whiplash, pulling her spine, nerves and muscles so severely that she had to get an implanted pump to administer pain medication directly into her spinal cord.

The injuries made it impossible for her to have children, and she has gone into debt because of her medical bills. She also quit her job and was forced to close her family business.

Her lawyer argued that the utility truck driver had flares, cones and other safety devices in the vehicle that could have been used to warn other drivers and prevent Aurdal’s crash.

A jury awarded Aurdal $2.7 million. The company hasn’t commented or said whether it plans to appeal.

Do you think the company was liable because its driver left the scene of the crash with the horse? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The boat, with 35 passengers and two crew, stalled in the Delaware River after the vehicle caught fire.

As the boat was sitting in the river, waiting for help, it was struck by a barge being pushed by a tug boat. Two passengers drowned in the Delaware River.

Accounts from passengers say they had less than a minute to get life jackets on children. However, local media report that the duck boat was sitting powerless for 15 minutes before the collision occurred.

A Pennsylvania regulation requires children 12 and younger to wear life jackets on recreational vehicles. That rule doesn’t apply to the Ride the Duck tours.

For commercial vehicles, such as the duck boats, children don’t have to wear the life jackets. The company just has to have enough life vests on board for everyone.

Chris Edmonton, director of boating safety at the Boat US Foundation, said he assumed the duck boat captain would have asked the passengers to don their jackets once the vessel lost power.

“That’s what I would have done, but he is not legally required to have them do it,” Edmonton told The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Questions remain about how much time the two crew members had to react once the duck’s engine failed.

So, how can you use this story in safety training?

The investigation into this case will surely look into how the two duck tour employees reacted when the engine unexpectedly failed.

Safety training for normal operating conditions is one thing. But how would your employees react to something unexpected?

Have you ever given workers a safety scenario during training and asked them how they’d handle it? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

But while OSHA has the pedal to the metal, it doesn’t want hell-for-leather motorists doing the same thing — at least not where workers could be endangered as a result.

A road and bridge construction company in Miami found that out the hard way. When workers closed off a lane on a major Florida highway, they posted a new and reduced speed limit sign.

Only problem: They didn’t remove or cover the existing speed limit sign.

It seems doubtful that motorists figured they could choose between the two posted speed limits, but OSHA wasn’t having it. Calling it a “blatant disregard for the safety and health of workers” and a “willful violation,” OSHA slapped the company with a $63,000 fine.

Michial Jacobs was struck by a tractor trailer driven by Thomas Lloyd on Oct. 2, 2004. The truck was going 55 miles per hour.

Lloyd fell asleep at the wheel.

Police reports say Jacobs suffered a fractured rib and sustained a concussion.

Jacobs sued Lloyd’s employers, Pacific Transportation Services and Ernie Newland. The employers admitted liability for the crash but contested the extent of Jacobs’ injuries.

Jacobs says he also suffered an injury to his mid-back which resulted in chronic pain. He says he hasn’t been able to return to work as a carpenter.

The employers offered to settle for the insurance policy limits on the claim, but Jacobs rejected that.

A city of Jeffersonville, IN, employee had taken two prescription pain medications just seven hours before the garbage packer he was driving was involved in a five-vehicle crash that killed a teenager.

Roger Crum Jr. was taking Lortab and Flexeril for lower back pain. At first he told investigators he took the meds only at night.

But later Crum admitted he took the pills between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m. on the morning of the crash. The pile-up happened at 11:30 a.m.

When Crum’s vehicle struck a small car, it killed its driver, 19-year-old Bethany Burrier. Three others were hospitalized. Crum was treated at the scene for minor injuries.

A city report notes the FDA says Lortab can cause light-headedness, dizziness and sedation and can impair thinking and physical abilities for driving. Flexeril also comes with a warning about driving.

Jeffersonville officials were apparently unaware that Crum took the drugs. The city has a policy that requires its drivers to report taking prescribed medications to their supervisors.

What’s your company’s policy on prescription meds and workers in safety-sensitive jobs? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

On Nov. 9, 2009, Tahir Fakhar was driving a tractor trailer along the bridge’s new S-curve when he lost control of the truck. It rolled over a 3-foot guardrail and fell about 200 feet to an island below. Fakhar was killed.

Now, an attorney for the truck driver’s family has filed a claim with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, a precursor to a wrongful death lawsuit.

The claim alleges the S-curve was “negligently designed and regulated.”

After the truck crash, Caltrans added additional speed warnings, flashing signs, a higher roadside barrier, rumble strips and clearer lane striping.

The lawyer for Fakhar’s family says that work should have been done previously.

Caltrans officials say the speed of Fakhar’s truck, 10 m.p.h. over the legal limit, was the problem, not the design or markings of the roadway.

While it may be difficult to assign fault in this case without more information, the story does raise a general safety question.

After you make safety rules (like a speed limit), train workers (such as preparing and licensing them to drive a tractor trailer), and post warning reminders (like speed limit signs), at what point does the responsibility for a worker’s safety shift from the company to the worker? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

A company required a female employee to take a physical strength test before returning to work after an injury. Was it a valid test of the employee’s ability to perform her job safely, or was it gender discrimination?

Deborah Merritt was a long-distance truck driver for Old Dominion Freight Line, which required her to be away from her family on some nights and weekends.

When positions for local pickup and delivery drivers opened at Old Dominion, she’d apply so she could have more time with her family.

The pickup and delivery drivers often had more physical tasks to perform, because they had to help with loading and unloading of cargo.

She was passed over more than once for less experienced male drivers.

Eventually, Merritt did get a pickup and delivery position. All indications were that she was doing a good job.

Then she injured her ankle. After a recovery period, she told Old Dominion she was ready to come back to work.

Her doctor OK’d her return to work with no restrictions. The day after her doctor’s appointment, Old Dominion required her to take physical ability test (PAT) before returning to work.

Old Dominion said Merritt failed portions of the test. No part of the test was designed to test whether an ankle injury would hinder an employee’s ability to do the job of a pickup and delivery driver.

Merritt was fired.

She filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination.

Merritt also presented evidence of discriminatory attitudes toward women at the company.

Employment records seemed to back that up. Old Dominion employed about 3,100 pickup and delivery drivers. Only six were women.

Old Dominion argued that the PAT was standard procedure before a driver could return to work after an injury.

However, the company couldn’t produce the PAT policy in writing. And Merritt’s lawyer presented evidence that the policy wasn’t always used.

That was enough for the judges. They denied Old Dominion’s motion to throw out the case. The court said it should go to a jury trial. Now the company must risk arguing its case in front of a jury, or it could choose to settle out of court which still might be expensive.

Bad news for employers using physical ability tests to make sure workers can do their jobs safely? Not at all.

In fact, the judges, in their opinion, wrote that PAT policies are reasonable. The problem in this case is that the company didn’t require them all the time, which, combined with other allegations, appeared to amount to a case of gender discrimination. The lack of a written policy also hurt.

And the test didn’t address the employee’s specific injury. In similar cases, courts have examined whether PATs reflect the real work to be done by employees or applicants.

What do you think about the judge’s decision? You can let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Merritt v. Old Dominion, U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit, No. 09-1498, 4/9/10. The entire opinion is available here (PDF).

The new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy took effect April 5.

The old rule was based on outdated versions of antidepressants that could cause drowsiness and other side effects.

Some pilots had kept their use of the medications a secret because of the previous rule. They were concerned they’d lose their certification to fly.

Under the new policy, pilots who take Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa or Lexapro will be allowed to fly if they’ve been successfully treated for a year without side effects that could pose a safety hazard in the cockpit.

The FAA is also granting amnesty for some pilots taking those four medications, known as SSRIs. The agency won’t take civil enforcement action against pilots who disclose their diagnosis of depression and treatment within six months.

The Army, Civil Aviation Authority of Australia and Transport Canada already allow some pilots to fly who are using antidepressants.

Does your company ask employees in safety-sensitive jobs to disclose certain types of medications they’re taking? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The employers will now receive a one-word description of the severity of every reported crash a bus driver applicant has had. The three word choices are fatal, injury or property, depending on whether the driver caused a death, injury or property damage.

Pennsylvania is making the change, effective in October, after receiving pressure from two state representatives in the wake of the case involving bus driver Frederick Poust III.

Poust faces vehicular homicide charges and 46 counts of reckless endangerment. Police say Poust didn’t stop before turning left into a middle school complex in suburban Philadelphia, and drove directly into the path of a car. The car’s passenger was killed and its driver was seriously injured. Investigators say he’d been talking on his cell phone and listening to music on an MP3 player before, but not at the time of, the crash.

In 1999, Poust was cited with careless driving and a stop sign violation. He was dialing his cell phone when he ran a stop sign and broad-sided another car. A two-year-old girl was killed in the crash. Poust’s punishment: a $50 fine.

His employer, Student Transportation of America, said it checked his driving record, but it didn’t reveal his 1999 crash.

That’s because the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation only releases driving records for the previous ten years for a bus driver applicant.

That’s going to change. Starting in October, school districts and private transportation companies will receive a list of all of an applicant’s reported crashes.

Disney’s lawyers say an employee inside the monorail maintenance shop reported that a track switch had been flipped when it had not.

The pilot of one monorail was given the OK to back up onto a different beam. That put the monorail in the path of another.

The collision killed 21-year-old Austin Wuennenberg. His mother has filed a wrongful death suit against Disney.

The documents released by the company also state that the on-site monorail coordinator went home sick shortly before the crash. Another manager took over the coordinator’s duties, but he was radioing in instructions from outside the park.

Disney has requested a jury trial. Its documents did not admit any fault in the crash. The company has changed some of its monorail procedures since the fatality.

The National Transportation Safety Board hasn’t released its final report yet. OSHA fined Disney $35,000 in connection with the incident.

Police say Frederick Poust III didn’t stop before attempting a left turn into a middle school complex in suburban Philadelphia. Poust allegedly turned directly into the path of a car. The car’s passenger was killed and its driver was seriously injured. None of the 45 children on the bus were injured. Poust wasn’t using his cell phone at the moment of the crash.

Poust faces vehicular homicide charges in addition to 46 counts of reckless endangerment. He’s being held in jail in lieu of $150,000 bail.

The school bus driver was involved in another fatal crash in 1999. Poust was dialing his cell phone when he ran a stop sign and broad-sided another car. A two-year-old girl in the car was killed. Poust was cited with careless driving and a stop sign violation and fined $50.

Poust’s employer, Student Transportation of America, said it checked his driving record, but the screening didn’t reveal the 1999 accident.

Bus camera footage retrieved from Poust’s bus shows he allegedly blew through 10 stop signs on the morning of the fatal accident.

The story calls into question how often school bus cameras are checked by the transportation companies or school districts using them.

Do you think the transportation company involved in this fatality should also be held responsible? How can transportation companies be sure their drivers don’t have previous violations, such as Poust’s, on their records? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

Yes, you shouldn’t shave while driving — especially below the waist.

Florida Highway Patrol troopers say a two-vehicle crash on Cudjoe Key was caused by a driver who was shaving her bikini area while her ex-husband took the wheel from the passenger seat.

The car driven by Megan Barnes — with some help from Charles Judy — slammed into the back of a pickup truck.

Barnes allegedly drove another half-mile then switched seats with Judy. Then Judy claimed to be driving when the crash occurred. Barnes was driving with a suspended license.

The burns on Judy’s chest from the passenger-side airbag indicated he wasn’t driving. The driver’s airbag didn’t deploy.

Barnes faces multiple charges including reckless driving and the possibility of a year in prison.

Passengers in the truck were treated by minor injuries.

Trooper Gary Dunick, who responded to the crash, told The Citizen, “I’m really starting to believe this stuff only happens in the Keys.”

Here’s one link between employee wellness and safety: As obesity becomes more common, more employees may suffer from a condition that makes them sleepy at work.

People are considered at risk for sleep apnea if they have a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more and a neck circumference of 17 inches or more.

Someone 5 feet 10 inches tall would have a BMI of 30 if they weighed 209 pounds. (Click here for a BMI chart.)

In 2008, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s medical review board recommended that commercial truck drivers with a BMI more than 30 be screened for sleep apnea. The FMCSA hasn’t adopted that recommendation, even though its own statistics show 26% of drivers suffer from the condition.

Some trucking firms are addressing the issue without government regulation. Schneider National recently started to diagnose and treat their drivers in an effort to reduce healthcare costs and reduce crash risks.

Schneider found 17% of its drivers had sleep apnea. Because of its program, the company has seen a significant reduction in the frequency and severity of crashes.

Drivers diagnosed with sleep apnea are required by the FMCSA to be disqualified until it’s been treated. However, a test for sleep apnea isn’t included in the licensing process for commercial drivers.

With a lack of regulations, it’s up to companies to decide how to address this wellness-safety link, not to mention others.

Does your company have a wellness program for employees? Do you think such programs help decrease the risk of certain types of workplace injuries? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) research shows no significant drop in crashes related to hand-held cell phone use.

HLDI compared insurance claims for crash damage in New York, Washington DC, Connecticut and California before and after their bans took effect with nearby control states without bans.

Previous studies show hand-held phone use declines when states enact bans and that phoning while driving increases crash risk. So, you’d think there would be a decrease in crashes.

Talk about a disconnect.

“We’re currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch,” said Adrian Lund, HLDI president.

Lund says one factor that might be eroding the effects of hand-held phone bans on crashes is that many drivers switch to hands-free phones. Studies show that the crash risk doesn’t decrease with hands-free devices compared to held-held ones.

No states have blanket bans on use of hands-free devices, but 21 states and Washington DC prohibit beginning drivers from using any type of phone, including hands-free. Those bans are difficult to enforce. In North Carolina, its teenage driver ban on cell phones didn’t curtail phone use.

The U.S. Department of Transportation recently banned texting while driving for commercial drivers of large trucks and buses.

Should states continue to enact bans on using hand-held phones while driving? Should the bans include hands-free phones, too? Should government stay out of it and allow businesses to make their own decisions for employees who drive as part of their jobs? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

CNN says Colgan Air told crews they may not call in fatigued if they’ve had a 12-hour or longer rest break.

This week, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its report on Continental Flight 3407 that crashed near Buffalo, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground.

The NTSB said pilot error caused the Feb. 12, 2009 crash. It also said fatigue did hurt performance of the two pilots but couldn’t be blamed for the crash.

One of three NTSB board members did vote to include fatigue as a cause of the crash.

The Federal Aviation Administration says tired pilots are supposed to call in fatigued and not fly.

But CNN says Colgan Air recently issued a memo, stating that its safety department would decide whether a fatigue call is acceptable and that blatant use of fatigue calls would be handled with disciplinary action.

Colgan and the pilots union say they’re working to revise the policy. The union says it opposes the presumed guilty approach of the memo and it wants the policy to be non-punitive.

This news about Colgan Air also follows a recent study which confirms that when workers try to catch up on a sleep deficit with ten hours of rest, it still leaves them vulnerable to accidents and errors.

Is Colgan’s policy reasonable? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

A sanitation employee, who was preparing to urinate while standing on a platform on the back of a garbage truck, fell off the truck as it was backing up. He was killed after the truck backed over him. His family is seeking workers’ comp benefits because of a modification made to the truck.

Michael LaPoint’s family argues this is an intentional wrong exception under the Workers’ Compensation Act, and they should be paid death benefits.

His employer, a township in New Jersey, says LaPoint ignored warnings about riding on the back of garbage trucks, especially when they were backing up.

The rear sides of the truck had warning decals stating, “CAUTION: Do not use riding step when vehicle is exceeding 10 MPH, operating in reverse or traveling in excess of 2/10 miles.” The township also provided employees with pamphlets containing similar warnings.

However, the township installed a platform step on the back of the truck. LaPoint’s family said the modification “clearly provided a substantial hazard that was certain to result in accidents, injury or death.”

In support of that argument, the family showed that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) eliminated rear platform steps on sanitation trucks from its standards in 1999 because of backup accidents that had occurred.

The court ruled in favor of the township and denied death benefits. The judges wrote, “In cases where the workers’ compensation bar was pierced, courts have cited repeated or knowing violations of OSHA regulations. This court is not aware of any case law indicating that non-compliance with a non-binding advisory standard is sufficient to make a showing of intentional wrong.”

The court also said that, since warning stickers and pamphlets were distributed, LaPoint “should have appreciated the risk in riding on the truck in reverse.”

The family also disputed the witness testimony that LaPoint was getting ready to urinate into the back of the truck. The court said that wasn’t crucial to the case.

Do you think the court made the right decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Mann v. Packer, Superior Crt. of NJ Appellate Div., No. A-1293-08T2, 1/13/10.

In this case, it was a bystander who was hit, but the story still conveys the need for employees to make sure equipment and stock is always safely secured.

An 82-year-old woman died two days after a hose dangling off a passing fire truck struck her in Cambridge, MA.

The truck was on the way to a fire call when a hose slipped out of a compartment on the vehicle’s side.

The driver didn’t know the hose was unspooling.

Police say as the truck turned a corner, “the hose swung around like a slingshot and the (metal nozzle) end of the hose” hit Gertrude King behind the knees.

King had been standing on an island median waiting for the truck to pass.

The Cambridge Fire Department is investigating why the hose came loose.

Authorities say Richard Basque was using a propane torch to thaw a frozen valve on a tanker truck when an explosion threw him 12 feet. He was killed instantly. Other employees at Tiger Tank Trucks suffered minor injuries.

The explosion was felt about two miles away. It blew sheet metal off the trucking company and shattered windows in adjacent buildings.

County Sheriff Shannon Smith told The Oklahoman it’s standard practice for truckers to use a propane torch to heat frozen truck valves.

The tanker was used to haul salt water and crude oil.

The employee of Denver’s Department of Safety was on duty and driving a city vehicle when he was involved in a crash.

He was immediately given a drug test that came back positive.

Denver’s City Attorney, David Fine, acknowledged the case and said they were looking into it. “It raises a lot of interesting and complicated questions,” Fine told Denver TV station CBS4.

Denver employment law attorney Emily Hobbs-Wright predicts the employee’s medical marijuana status probably won’t protect him from discipline.

Courts in other states have viewed medical marijuana the same way they view other prescription drugs: They may be legal, but that doesn’t mean you can be impaired by them while on the job.

Hobbs-Wright says employers will have to determine, using relevant medical standards, what constitutes marijuana impairment.

New Jersey just enacted a medical marijuana law, bringing the number of states with such statutes to 14.

How should businesses balance medical marijuana use and workplace safety? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The NTSB also recommended that all commuter rail lines in the nation install cameras to monitor train operators.

The report says Metrolink engineer Robert Sanchez, who was killed in the crash, had sent 43 texts on the day of the collision, some of them to young railroad fans. He intended to sneak at least one of them on to the train later that day in violation of workplace rules.

The lead attorney in lawsuits against Metrolink said Sanchez’s employer knew he’d engaged in this kind of behavior before, but hadn’t disciplined or fired him.

The NTSB says the conductor of the Union Pacific train that was struck also sent and received text messages while on duty the day of the crash.

Metrolink has already installed cameras in many of its cabs and locomotives and has banned the use of cell phones by engineers.

NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said the industry “must find a way to wrap our arms around the pervasive problem of transportation operators using wireless devices while on the job, whether that job is driving a bus, flying an airplane, or operating a train.”

Just days after the report on the train crash was released, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced a ban on texting for commercial drivers of large trucks and buses. The ban is effective immediately.

What sorts of workers should be banned, for safety reasons, from texting and/or using cell phones at work? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Jesse Cooper was a master plumber and foreman for Barnickel Enterprises. He’d gone to a location where a job was about to begin to discuss details.

When he arrived, he found the person he needed to talk to was teaching a class and wouldn’t be available for 45 minutes. Cooper decided to go get some coffee at a deli about five miles away.

On the way there, he was involved in a serious accident that broke one of his arms and both of his legs.

The New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation awarded Cooper 100% disability.

Barnickel appealed, arguing that Cooper’s accident didn’t arise out of and in the course of his employment.

A state appeals court rejected Barnickel’s argument and said Cooper should receive workers’ comp benefits.

The court said Cooper engaged in “exactly the kind of brief activity which if embarked on by an inside employee working under set time and place limitations, would be compensable under the personal comfort doctrine.”

In other words, accidents occurring during coffee breaks for off-site employees, which are equivalent to those of on-site workers, are eligible for workers’ comp benefits.

Do you think the court made the right decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Cooper v. Barnickel Enterprises, Superior Crt. of NJ Appellate Div., No. A-1813-08T3, 1/13/10. Court opinion is available here (PDF).

Criminal prosecution of companies where safety violations cause serious injuries or fatalities are rare in the U.S. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note how such cases are handled in another democracy.

In the last seven years, more than 70 plea bargain deals have been cut in Queensland, Australia, between companies with serious workplace accidents and the state government.

The Queensland state government recently settled with an electrical contractor, Stowe Australia. One of its workers was left a paraplegic after a 2007 industrial incident. The worker was helping unload an almost 900-pound switchboard when the equipment fell on him, causing severe spinal injuries.

In exchange for dropping criminal charges, Stowe agreed to make a formal statement of regret, improve its health and safety standards, publish an article on the incident, and provide funding to the Spinal Injuries Association.

For comparison, the trucking company that was transporting the switchboard was prosecuted in court and fined $45,000.

In another case, Sea World was initially prosecuted for a workplace injury case on charges that carried a maximum penalty of two years in prison and more than $1 million in fines. The government withdrew the criminal charges. In exchange, Sea World promised to spend almost $300,000 on safety improvements.

A spokesman for the government defended the settlements, saying they “require the employer to carry out a range of safety measures that extend well beyond the original breach. They are only entered into when the benefits for workers, the industry and the community can be clearly shown.”

The spokesman said the settlements pave the way for “long-lasting and more wide-ranging safety changes.” The government totals the number of safety enhancements at companies due to these settlements at more than $17 million.

What do you think about this method of holding companies responsible for serious injuries and fatalities? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

People in two cars near Orleans, IN, faced that terrifying sight, which ultimately proved fatal.

A semi-trailer hauling a load of steel coil was rounding a curve on a state highway when a 44,000-pound coil fell off the truck.

The coil struck a pickup truck, killing two people. Then it continued to roll and struck a car, killing another person. A child in the pickup was also hospitalized and is now listed in fair condition.

State police issued a ticket to the driver of the semi for having the coil improperly secured.

Should the owner of the truck face additional charges? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

President Obama’s ban allows federal workers to use cell phones while driving if they have hands-free devices. There are also exemptions for certain law enforcement and national security employees.

Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood has called on businesses to lead through example by enacting employee policies for cell phone use while driving for work purposes. In a recent speech to the American Chamber of Commerce Executive Board, LaHood said, “Don’t send text, don’t use your cell phone, your iPod, or your Blackberry when you’re behind the wheel.”

The DOT has also just launched Distraction.gov, a Web site that pulls together all of the federal government’s information on distracted driving.

LaHood says the government is using every tool at its disposal, including technology and the rule-making process, to get a handle on the problem of using cell phones while driving.

What is the best way for the government to address this issue? Should it encourage use of technology that would make it impossible (or at least difficult) to use a cell phone while driving? Or should laws be enacted to make it a crime? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

California’s Supreme Court has refused to reconsider a decision granting workers’ comp benefits to an employee after she was injured while shopping for a work-related potluck.

Yvette Casarez was injured while traveling to a shopping center to buy food and gifts for a holiday party for co-workers to be held at the employer’s office the next day.

Her husband lost control of the truck in which she was a passenger. The truck struck the center divider and rolled over several times.

Her employer supported the potlucks to promote teamwork. Casarez also showed that she was on call for the employer at the time of the crash. For those reasons, a workers’ comp administrative judge concluded she was injured in the course of performing a work-related duty that benefited the employer.

The company, Davita, Inc., appealed the comp award to the full workers’ comp board, a state appeals court and finally to the state supreme court. At every step, the benefits were upheld.

What do you think of the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Yvette Casarez v. Davita, Inc., Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, State of CA, Case No. ADJ278138.

Regulations governing contractors’ safety responsibilities vary from state to state.

A New York Times article says, as a result, there are few penalties levied against contractors when guidelines are violated.

Why this is more important now than ever: The federal government has poured billions of stimulus dollars into state road construction. There will be a lot of road construction in the next few years.

And some of the contractors getting stimulus money to rebuild roads have been involved with fatal highway crashes.

Example: This year, Florida awarded a bridge-repair contract for $744,000 to Zep Construction of Fort Myers. The Times says Zep has a long history that includes work-zone safety done wrong.

Two years ago in Sarasota, while repairing a bridge on I-75, Zep used a rolling roadblock. In a properly run roadblock, police cruisers slow down traffic to 20 miles an hour.

But shortly after midnight on Oct. 1, 2007, traffic in this roadblock came to a halt in a blind spot where the speed limit was 70.

A tractor trailer wasn’t able to stop in time and plowed into a car driven by James Brashear with his 11-year-old son, Tyler, also on board. The crash killed Mr. Brashear instantly, his body wedged against his son’s lap. One other motorist was killed, and 10 others were injured.

The State Transportation Department cited Zep. The lawyer for Tyler’s mother said he believed the financial incentives for contractors to finish projects early and earn a bonus undermined safety.

Despite the crash and citation, Florida gave Zep 98 out of 110 possible points for the I-75 project — 89%, or roughly a B+.

Many traffic lights now use LED bulbs instead of incandescent ones. Reason: The LEDs are 80% to 90% more energy-efficient.

And that energy efficiency is the problem. The energy wasted by incandescent bulbs was heat. But in winter storms, that heat was melting snow that accumulated on the lights.

The LEDs don’t generate enough heat to melt snow, and that’s been blamed for one traffic fatality and dozens of other collisions and injuries.

In a storm in Illinois last April, 34-year-old Lisa Richter had a green light and entered an intersection. A driver coming from the opposite direction couldn’t see the red light that was obscured by snow and plowed into Richter’s car, killing her.

The snow doesn’t stick to the lights in every storm. The snow has to be wet and the wind blowing in the right direction to obscure the LED lights.

When motorists have called in about lights obscured by snow, crews have had to manually clear them off. In some places they blow the snow off using compressed air.

Several solutions are being tried, such as using heating elements like those in airport runway lights, installing weather shields or coating the lights with water-repellent substances.

Your company drivers probably know that when a traffic light isn’t working because of a power outage, they should treat the intersection as a four-way stop. The same goes if the lights are obscured by snow. They should stop before entering the intersection.

Jeri Montgomery, 24, of Humble, TX, was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 10 years probation and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine for criminally negligent homicide in a distracted driving case that killed a man.

Montgomery will also have to pay the funeral expenses for the 25-year-old she killed.

Montgomery illegally changed lanes as she tried to get onto a  highway on-ramp she had missed seconds after hanging up her call phone.

She will also have to write a 1,000-word essay “suitable for publication in school newspapers,” about the dangers of distracted driving. She’s also lost her drivers’ license until further notice.

Montgomery’s lawyer calls her prosecution “politically motivated,” saying they wanted to make an example out of her.

In Oxford, England, a similar story, but a different sentence.

Phillipa Curtis, 22, was sentenced to 21 months in a high-security prison for killing a 24-year-old woman in a car crash. Curtis’ cell phone records showed she’d been texting-while-driving moments before the crash.

Upon hearing the sentence, prosecutors quickly appealed to Britain’s highest court for a longer prison term, calling 21 months, “unduly lenient.” A judge declined to reconsider the sentence.

Britain’s new guidelines state that using a hand-held phone when causing a death will “always make the offense more serious” in terms of punishment and lead to prison time. This is especially the case for texting.

What do you think about the sentences in these two cases? Was one more appropriate than the other? Has your company banned employees from talking and/or texting on cell phones while driving? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The answer is, “Yes.” It’s all about proper ergonomics.

The sitting position flattens the small of the back, increasing the pressure on the discs in the spine. When a person sits, the discs may not be able to handle the vibrations coming from a moving vehicle.

Also, the ligaments in the back that help hold the spine together can stretch and slacken when the body is in a sitting position for a long time. And the ligaments can stay that way for a while, even after the driver stands.

The stresses on employees’ discs and ligaments can increase their risk for back injury.

Who’s at risk? Truck drivers, emergency medical technicians, mass transit drivers, delivery people, heavy equipment operators, farmers and forklift operators.

Here are some reminders you can give these workers to avoid injury from driving:

• Make sure you can reach the steering wheel without stretching your arms
• Adjust the seat so you can press the foot pedals without moving your lower back forward off the seat back
• Tilt the seat cushion until your thighs are supported along the full length of the cushion without pressure at the back of your knees
• Tilt your seat a notch or two back and forth every half hour to change the direction of vibration on your body
• Keep the vehicle’s suspension in good working order
• Use a lumbar support (or a rolled up towel) to help you fit the back rest to your back
• Use good posture, and
• Take regular stretch breaks for several minutes every hour or two.

Click here for more information.

The group calculates a Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) for each area based on number of deaths per 100,000 residents and the percent of employees walking to work.

Here are the top 10 most dangerous areas along with their corresponding PDIs:

1. Orlando-Kissimmee, FL: 221.5
2. Tampa, St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL: 205.5
3. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL: 181.2
4. Jacksonville, FL: 157.4
5. Memphis, TN: 137.7
6. Raleigh-Cary, NC: 128.6
7. Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN: 114.8
8. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX: 112.4
9. Birmingham-Hoover, AL: 110.0, and
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA: 108.3.

The three safest areas are the New York City metropolitan area, Boston and Minneapolis.

Overall, nine of the ten most dangerous metros are in the South, including the top four in Florida. Transportation for America says these areas are dominated by lower population density and vehicle-oriented development patterns.

On the other hand, metros in older northeastern and northern states did much better because they have compact development patterns.

Transportation for America is calling for more spending to cut down on pedestrian deaths, noting that walking and bicycling is becoming more popular as gas prices go up and workers turn to alternative forms of transportation.

In a court settlement with Public Citizen, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has agreed to reissue the rules. Public Citizen and other groups had filed a lawsuit contesting the regulations.

Under FMCSA’s Nov. 19, 2008 Final Rule on Hours of Service for Drivers, driving hours expanded from 10 to 11  hours within a 14-hour window. Drivers could also restart their weekly on-duty limits after having at least 34 consecutive hours off duty.

Public Citizen and other groups claimed that commercial drivers would be less safe if they were allowed to drive more hours per week.

FMCSA has agreed to propose a new rule no later than July 2010. The agency has also agreed to publish a final rule by July 2011.

The court settlement is online here (PDF).