17-year-old employee killed in shredder; can family sue for wrongful death?
October 14, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: Fatality, Lawsuits, new court decision, Safety training, Safety vs. production, Special Report, State OSHAs, Teen workers, What do you think?, Workers' comp, Young people and safety
PDF 
A company removed guards from a shredder, assigned an underage employee to use it and didn’t train him. The teen was crushed to death in the shredder. Does the teen’s family have a case for wrongful death, or are they limited to workers’ comp death benefits?
Seventeen-year-old Nery Castaneda Valenzuela was killed while working for Pallet Express.
One day, Valenzuela was working at a pallet shredder with another employee. The supervisor was late for work that day. The other worker left the machine to get a forklift.
When the other worker returned, Valenzuela wasn’t there. Moments later, his remains were found on the discharge side of the shredder.
North Carolina OSHA issued 11 violations including:
- allowing an underage employee to work on heavy equipment, and
- removing safety guards from the shredder.
Workers’ compensation is usually the exclusive means for the family of someone killed on the job to be compensated for the death.
However, there is an exception. In North Carolina, the exception is “where an employee is injured or killed as a result of the intentional misconduct of the employer.”
Valenzuela’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit, under the intentional misconduct provision of the comp law.
The company asked for the lawsuit to be thrown out because no one witnessed the fatality.
The trial court threw out the lawsuit, and the family appealed.
The family argued that the company engaged in intentional misconduct by:
- removing safety guards from the shredder which sacrificed employee safety for increased production
- assigning an underage employee to work on heavy equipment in violation of state and federal law
- failing to provide Valenzuela with proper training on the shredder, and
- failing to ensure that trained personnel were present when the shredder was operated.
The appeals court agreed with the trial court. It said the evidence failed to show that the employer knew that its misconduct was substantially certain to cause serious injury and was so egregious that it would be considered intentional harm.
The verdict: The case was thrown out. The family was limited to collecting death benefits through workers’ comp.
(Valenzuela v. Pallet Express, Court of Appeals of NC, No. COA10-87, 10/5/10.)
What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: killed in shredder, machine guards, underage employee, Workers' comp, wrongful death
Loading ...
October 18th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Katke Risk Consult, HP&P Safety, Inc.. HP&P Safety, Inc. said: 17-year-old employee killed in shredder; can family sue for wrongful death? http://bit.ly/cC6EHF [...]
October 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
If the employees know the rules and decided that they are going to violate them, then the employees are just as guilty as the employer.
There may have been no intent to cause anyone any harm; however, the company violated several fedederal and state laws.
There may be cause to bring criminal charges against the employee who left the under age untrained employee alone with the equipment.
October 19th, 2010 at 6:38 am
On the face of it this case doesn’t meet commonsense criteria for “intentional misconduct.” Nevertheless, the company’s malfeasance in, at the very least failing to train this employee, ought to bring the company in for some kind of penalty. I frankly hope the family’s lawyers try again and win. If a real person, not a company, did such a thing they would likely face charges for something like reckless endangerment.
October 19th, 2010 at 6:58 am
My opinion is that the company most certainly knew or had reason to know that their conduct could cause injury. The sad part about this case is the court so wrapped itself around the “evidence” it couldn’t see the obvious. The simple fact that OSHA cited them for 11 violations speaks volumes! That alone is evidence enough for a wrongful death conviction in my opinion!
October 19th, 2010 at 7:31 am
Correct decision.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Wow. I would have awarded more as a gesture of sorrow and penance by the company. I can’t imagine what dollar amount I could place on my kid but if something happened to my kid I’d demand a life for a life.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:01 am
That is terrible that a company & worker would be so negligent of a young teen whom should have never been working in that area. All equipment like a shreder etc. are extreemly dangereous and should be known to all people that would operate or work with the equipment. That was an unnecessary death and the parents should be compensated for the loss of their child. A company that does not take responsibility for their igorance or care of concern should be fined and the money should go to the parents. What a tragedy and a waste of a young teen’s life.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:10 am
This wrong very wrong. I can understand that the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation can rule that benefits cannot be paid because of misconduct AND THEREFORE the pallet company looses its Workers’ Compensation coverage and its protection from being sued by a injured employee and/or his heirs. The family needs to sue for punitive damages as well as wrongful death in a civil trial. They need to do this before the pallet company files for bankruptsey or closes its doors. This is wrong very wrong.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:18 am
I believe a company is responsible for the actions of there employee’s and in this case this young mans fate lied in the company’s hands. His young man should have not been near that machine without proper training or experience. The company’s failure to provide safe guards on this machine is just plan negligent especially when the company removed them. I work for a company and my job is to keep employees safe from harm while working by properly training our employee’s and continued safety training. I know that there are two sides to every story but unfortunately we’ll only know one in this case. This company should have made sure that there was two side to this story by training employee’s, safe guarding machinery and making sure that their employee’s are safe to tell that other side of the story.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:19 am
There’s not enough information here for a knowledgeable comment. We can only hope the courts got it right.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:35 am
The NC law does not state anything regarding the company being aware that it’s misconduct was certain to cause harm. If the misconduct is intentional as in this case, the family is entitled to a wrongful death settlement. The certainty of the misconduct causing serious harm is not the issue but rather the intentional misconduct itself.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:36 am
I certainly do not agree with the verdict. Why were the safety guards removed? If this machine was that dangerous, a 17 year old un-trained employee should have never been left by himself no matter what the reason. And it makes no sense to say it was because no one witnessed the accident. What differance does that make? It saddens me to think that the life of a young boy would be taken so lightly. The employer knows what they should do for safety reasons and they were not doing it. My job doesn’t do anything close to this situation and we still don’t let an untrained employee by them self. My heart goes out to this boys family.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Had the company just been guilty of not having the machine guarded well enough, I would say that perhaps intentional misconduct would be a little strict, but the company took off the guarding. They knew they were taking a chance with someone’s safety. I think that should be intentional misconduct. Not training the employee properly? They probably showed him how to turn the machine on and how to operate it but not anything about the safety aspects of the machine. That probably happens at all of our companies more than we want to admit.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:53 am
In most of these cases I have a tendency to side with the company and that may be with this one to but there is not enough info for me to decide, and here are the reasons, who removed the safety guards, was it the company or the employee, was the employee really assigned to work with that equipment or did he go over on his own, as far as the last two reasons that the lawsuit was filed are not applicable since it was illegal for the employee to be working on the equipment.
If the company removed the safety guards then they are wrong if it was the employee then he is wrong.
Here is the real issue, if it is illegal for a 17 year old to operate this machinery and he was assigned to that work then the company has a real issue and should be liable, if the employee went over on his own then they should be in the clear.
This is an unfortunate accident no matter who is responsible.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Seems fare to me. An illegal in New York brakes his leg and gets millions. A citizen of this country looses his life because of no training and safety equipment is removed and has very little recourse. Only in America do aliens have more rights than residents!!!!
October 19th, 2010 at 9:10 am
I agree with Wayne. These articles never give the whole story. I agree the outcome was horrible and tragic, and I would be devestated if it had happened to a child, friend or family member of mine, but at the risk of sounding cold hearted, how do we know the 17 year old didn’t jump into machine on purpose? Do we have to assume that 17 year olds are too incompetent to handle dangerous work? I have to assume that guards or no guards, falling into a giant shredder would have to take at least a little work or a whole bunch of not paying attention… Even a 17 year old must be aware of the dangers of a machine like that… Maybe someone pushed him-the point is, I don’t know and none of you do either, so how can you judge what penalty / compensation should be awarded, other than what is the existing precedence. I’m sorry, but at some point I believe people must be held accountable for their own actions. Isn’t that what we try to teach our children from a very young age? This is tragic, I agree, and my heart goes out to the company. I’m just not sure there is ever going to be a right answer to how much money is the right amount…
October 19th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I think the family should have contacted the manufacturer of the shredder to ask what the purpose were for the guards. Were they actually meant to keep a person from being sucked in or to prevent debris from flying out? If it’s strictly for flying debris, then the manufacturer may actually be at fault. Like Wayne said, there’s really not enough information given to make a clear cut decision. Like Humpty Dumpty, he could have been pushed.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:17 am
This is not justice. If it were the owner’s son would the person responsible for training still have a job?
October 19th, 2010 at 9:22 am
“The appeals court agreed with the trial court. It said the evidence failed to show that the employer knew that its misconduct was substantially certain to cause serious injury and was so egregious that it would be considered intentional harm.”
Are you kidding!!! How could anyone not know that removing guards that were designed for safety may result in serious injury. If that’s the case then why did OSHA fine the company for it? Furtheremore, if we allow a company to claim ignorance as their defense, then whose to say that companies around the country will not site this case as an example where it’s acceptable to remove safety devices, allow an underage person to operate a dangerous machine unaccompanied, while never having given them the proper training. If and when a person is killed at work, the company can basically say we didn’t know this would happen and get away with it (as long as nobody witnesses the accident).
October 19th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Hans - I respect your right to an opinion but to suggest that maybe someone pushed him or maybe he jumped into the machine makes no sense to me. The competency or common sense of most 17 year olds is not the question. Whether the company took reasonable steps to safeguard their employees is the issue. The company is required to train employees, guard the machine and enforce the rules, all of which they did not do. They are clearly liable for this young man’s death. As far as getting the whole story, we can only assess based on the information provided, which holds true for any accident investigation.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Well, we seem to always be complaining about employees getting over on the system by making fake claims. This is certainly where the company dodged a bullet. Removing guard rails, seems like, would have been enough to make the company at fault, but with all the other stuff, I have a hard time believing they got away with that one.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Assuming that this article is factual, the first line says “A company removed guards from a shredder, assigned an underage employee to use it and didn’t train him.” It goes on to say “North Carolina OSHA issued 11 violations including: allowing an underage employee to work on heavy equipment, and removing safety guards from the shredder.”
Now based on this, it would seem that the company knew the guards had been removed, knew that the employee was only 17, knew they weren’t supposed to take the guards off of the machinery, and surely knew they should train the employee to operate the equipment. So based on the information available here, I absolutely think the employer should be held responsible. As with any legal case, there is surely more information but on the surface and based on the information provided, I say the company is at fault.
The larger picture here is that the company clearly does not have a strong safety culture, otherwise the guards would have never been removed to being with. Unfortunately, as safety professionals, we know that we cannot truly apply the “common sense” rule. If this were the case, there would be no need for us to conduct hazcom training (for example) as it would seem to be common sense not to ingest certain chemicals or allow them to get on our hands; afterall, it is usually on the label. Enough people have been injured through the mishandling of chemicals, therefore we have 1910.1200. The common sense rule does not apply here; why is it that we think it should apply elsewhere, and specifically in this case simply because there isn’t an OSHA rule saying not to remove guards from and then get inside a shredder? I understand completely the premise of common sense, but applying the “common sense” rule here to defend the employer doesn’t sit well with me. If the company (as stated in the article) knowingly removed the guards, there was problem one; they then assigned an underage employee to work with this machinery, which created problem two; once assigned to this equipment, the employee was not trained, which leads to problem three. At any one of these three points, a better decision could have and should have been made by the company. Then we would not be having this discussion and a 17 year old young man might still be alive.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Wow Hans! Do you really think the kid jumped into the machine on purpose? And your heart goes out to the COMPANY! What about the life that was ended way too soon do to clearly neglegence on the companies side. I pray that nothing like this ever happens to anyone close to you because I truely believe your statement would change. I have to say that your statement is so messed up it should have never been posted.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:52 am
The courts missed this one. The sad thing is that a young man died needlessly due to, what appears to be a company, and the management of that company, that has little to no regard for the safety of all of their employees. It is the employers’ responsibility to provide a safe work environment, and this company did not do that. I agree with Chuck C. who says” The family needs to sue for punitive damages as well as wrongful death in a civil trial. They need to do this before the pallet company files for bankruptcy or closes its doors. This is wrong very wrong.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:11 am
I agree with Wayne and Hans. How does anyone know for sure if he was or was not trained. How do we know if the employee who walked away didn’t tell him to NOT use the machine until he got back. Yes the company removed the guard but I’m sure if they would have know it may kill they would not have done so. I feel for the family, any parent would, but we need to get real and know that money does not bring them back and does not make losing a child any easier.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:21 am
As soon as the company violated the law by having a KID work on this equipment I believe they lost there protection from a lawsuit. If a 17 year old is deemed unable to form a informed decison to vote; how can that 17 year old be deemed capable of making an informed decison to identify occupational risks and in this case chose to ignore the risks.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:47 am
The underage employee was none the less an employee who also should have known the limitations on the job, unless that was never explained to him at time of hiring. We don’t know the what was said before experienced employee left or what on the spot training was given and possibly ignored by 17 yr old,(having a son close to that age I know they sometimes ignore saftey advise-wrecked cars being one example) In this case we will have to hope the courts had all the necessary information and weighed it before decision. As far as young man jumping into shredder this seems far fetched since it seems to such a painful brutal way to go.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:48 am
money won’t bring back the kid but it will help with funeral costs and other expenses. I wish the company would own up and offer appropriate condolences.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Realistically, in addition to punitive and wrongul death, the family should seek criminal charges against the company on the grounds that the safety equipment had been altered or removed. The company cannot hide behind the “I didn’t know that the device had been removed” or the “I didn’t know that we had a 17 year old employee” excuse. Case and point the owner is responsible for everything the company does or dosen’t do unless it can be proven that he truely had no knowledge of what was going on and that the company had procedures in place that would prevent a violation of all this stuff that was deliberately breached by someone in authority.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:04 am
It is very unfortunate that a young man lost his life, but there is not enough information provided in the article to formulate a good idea of exactly what took place. The employee may not have been trained, because he was not authorized to operate the equipment. Everyone wants to see this company get punished, fined, and sued to no end because a young man died, which is unfortunate, but you have to put your own personal emotions aside and look at the facts, which are clearly not provided in this article. I would suggest trying to find the investigation report by looking through the BOL search site for NC fatalities and then formulate an opinion.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Let’s not play the what-if game and take the article for face value, not read into it, and make a judgment on the limited info. I believe this is so “intentional misconduct” that if it doesn’t slap you in the face you’re blind.
BOTTOM LINE:
If an employer removes guards from any type of machine that is “required” to be guarded, either by code or by manufacturer, it is intentional violating the OSHA standard therefore resulting in intentional misconduct.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:20 am
The One Million Dollar Question?
Is the Guard on the Shredder now?
October 19th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I do not agree with the decision. I believe the company’s actions did constitute intent and should have been liable for the loss outside of workers comp. If a company takes an action in violation of law or regulations, or even the operating instructions of the equipment, they have taken actions that show requisite intent should something go wrong.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Well, there is a lot here that we don’t know. For instance, to inform our opinion of this case, it would be good to know just exactly what the 11 OSHA citations were for. We also need to know the exact wording of the Workers’ Compensation laws were. Workers’ compensation was developed in the early 1900s as an alternative to sueing the employer, and having those suits drag out for years; because of that, it is a “no fault” law. But the up side of that is that compensation is immediate, and guaranteed.
There is always a lot of emotion about these kinds of deaths. As a safety professional, I’ve seen these happen in the woods products industry, with wood chipper machines. What some don’t realize is that the act of feeding these kinds of machines can cause the piece being fed to be pulled very quickly into the machine. The piece being pulled can snag on a glove, or even pierce a hand, and pull the person into the machine. The guards are in place to ensure that a person doesn’t get pulled into the shredder, or “fall” into it (which is extremely unlikely unless working above it).
The question at hand is “What do you think about the court’s decision?” My answer is that two courts have reviewed the evidence, and made their decision. Without all the information, I cannot say how I’d come down on this one. But, saying that, I would want to know who took those guards off, and why?
October 19th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
While I sympathize with the family, how do we know that the boy did not jump into the shredder of his own accord as Hans eluded to? Or perhaps pushed into the shredder? There were NO witnesses!
A life was taken and no money in the world will ease the pain of the family.
We had a case similar to this in Illinois where a young man disappeared while working in a grocery store. Was he killed by a co-worker? The body was never found but police theorize that a grinder was used to dispose of it. It has taken several years for anyone to be charged. Who is to say that is not what happened in this case?
October 19th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Any equipment with safety guards are for protection, whether they save someone from an injury or death. I don’t think the courts are helping the family because they are using blinders to not see where this company is at fault. Put this up to a jury and you can see the company is at fault and neglect. They are trying to keep this from being a law suit that will make some poor family rich.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Cheryl- I immediately tried to post that I did a typo-my heart goes out to the FAMILY-not the COMPANY-but apparently it didn’t get accepted…sorry about that-that really would make me look heartless… Yikes… anyway-my point was simply that we really don’t know what happened-could have been any of the options discussed so far. I am not defending the company for not using safety precautions-bad choice by them-in fact I’d like to hear their reasons for doing so, but as usual this is more of a forum to create discussions based on each of our estimations about what happened in each case without being provided with all the details-hence any explanation is plausable with no real need for personal expressions of opinion on the individuals posting.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Ann, we know because that is what is stated in the article and because OSHA cited them for that!…. Our legal system is simply messed up…. some people even get weight reduction cirguries under workers comp but when you have a clear case of negligence on the part of the company now the ruling is off? There is absolutely no amount of money that can begin to compensate a family for the death of child, son, grandson, cousin etc.. But that company should be put in a position where they loose everything. 11 OSHA violations? That does nothing…I wonder if the people who made decision to remove the guards and allow an employee (it does not matter what age) to work without training in that equipment, are able to sleep at night…..
October 19th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
At 17, there are more things on the mind of a young man then using proper proceedures for a machine he has not been properly trained to use. At this age, hormones cause minds to drift and accidents to happen. There are not enough fatcs about how this accident was caused and as such knowledge as to how he was sucked into the machine, perhaps a sleeve got caught on a piece of material about to be shredded, this could have been the direct cause for the accident and as such the accident might not have been avoided regardless of all things considered. This family is feeling let down by the courts especially in light of the elevan violations from OSHA. To have acknowledged increased production as a basis for removal of safety guards the company knowningly placed every individual working on the machine in danger. To not find this company at fault in any level has only added to the hurt and injury this family is suffering from. Hopefully the family is still willing to pursue other avenues to prevent other companies who are willing to behave in such flagrent disregard to the protection of their employees over company profit. The loss here is devastating.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Good point about the million dollar question Martin. Answering that could go both ways while on the witness stand. If it has not replaced they’ll hang themselves and if it has been replaced the prosecuting attorney will again ask why.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:31 am
I think at the least the employer should be forced to pay the family the same amount it was fined for the 11 OSHA violations. These violations lead to the accident, let the fines (or the monitary value) of the fine s go to the family. There may not have been intention to harm but there doesnt seem to be much management control at this plant.
October 23rd, 2010 at 11:50 pm
I disagree with the courts decision. I feel the family should receive some compensation. The employer “willfully”removed the guards for production purposes, and the employee obviously was not provided adequate training in the operation and safeguarding of the equipment.
October 25th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The key word is ” untrained ” When the employer allowed the 17 year old to work around the shredder
they automatically became liable. I can’t believe any court would not go after them big time.
October 26th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Hey Chuck C.
Do I know you? I have known a Chuck C. for several years from another time in my career. I agree with you and to take it a step further.
Osha failed to look at Operator manuals and see first hand that any shredder, grinder, chipper etc equipped with shrouds and or any guarding is Not to be Operated Without, for fear of injury and or death. The manufacturers realize this fact and ensure their literature is well documented with disclaimers thoughout their manuals and I am sure there was warning stickers at one time on the machine (had they been removed also).
The skull and crossbone diagrams used in most operator manuals say it all. (International Safety Hazard diagram)
Being the Carolinas vs the deceased, a minority labor employee plus an underage kid says a lot about the hiring practices of the company. He was replacable / expendable /don’teven have to pay him minimum wage.
The family should take it up a notch and involve legal entities outside the realm of the ‘good ol boy’ syndrome they are apparently working /dealing with.
Shrouding and guarding incidents are a constant and with any thing the geographic location of incidents dictates the outcome of penalty and even level of investigation. Look at the OSHA FAT-CAT.
For the novices on this blog this was not an accident, this was an INCIDENT that was known to occur and hence the guarding measures applied by the manufacturer. I have been ranting INCIDENT vs ACCIDENT for years in 3 different countries and until Safety People all over get this mantra I will not stop.
An accident is NOT PREVENTABLE. AN INCIDENT IS. You Safety Professionals out there think about that for a moment. Let’s take it up a notch in our writing and own incident investigations.
This incident was a callous act on the part of the employer.
I would like to be the lead investigator in this companys pallet operation.
When it comes down to it as a Safety professional I learned years ago investigating my first fatality that opinions and guesses are not valid and there is no gray. It is black or white when it comes to compliance.
The courts failed in this case, the family probably living on the edge of finacial failure tossed aside, the business regarded as having made a mistake and cut loose.
This is just the thing that OSHA was developed for by the govt, to protect the underaged, sweatshop type employees and provide them a workplace free of ALL known hazards. They (the company) took the low road and willfully denied that employee his rights under the OSHA act. They willfully took off the guards and or failed to replace them and place the hazard directly in front of the worker. Those not knowing what a shredder is then internet search it. It is a nightmare machine that commands huge respect.
With regards the employee working in an unsafe place and not bringing up unsafe conditions…he was 17.. what did he know. What did any of you Safety professionals know at 17. He was taken advantage of by his employer.
-John
October 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am
John C-Amen, Brother, Amen!! Good Job!
I agree 100% on the “Accident” vs “Incident.” Even in auto wrecks, they always call them “accidents.” If a person is speeding, runs a red light, following too close, etc. how can it be an accident? It’s negligence in my book. Same goes here. The company was negligent and the court was ignorant.
October 26th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I agree with John C, as well. And as for Paduke: you ignorant racist. Where does it say he was an ‘illegal’? Stop the hate! First of all, this is a place to comment about the outcome of a lawsuit, not your racist views. Second, if the name was changed to Billy Joe Bob or Howard, I’m sure you would see the reality that this was an unfair decision on the judge.
The employer is clearly responsible. Not to mention OSHA citing them for 11 violations. And as we all know, OSHA was created to protect the safety of all workers. The employee should have been supervised at all times, and warned of the dangers. The fact that this case was thrown out of court is ridiculous! Yes, money doesn’t bring back the kid, but it will sure hurt the employer where he is most concerned about…the pocket! The family is entitled to be compensated for the lack of supervision and direction from the employer.
October 27th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Yeah what SandyLee said. I’m so tired of people automatically assuming because someone has a spanish last name they are illegal. White people are just as much imigrants as hispanics. If you want to go there you should of kept your behinds in europe practicing your pilgrim religious beliefs and not striking down native americans so you could steal their land. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house fool. America is suppose to be a melting pot. Embrace it or run back to your puritan country you red neck high school drop out trailer trash outhouse using mother…
October 27th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Sandy and Safety Guy: I don’t think Paduke was saying that he was an illegal. He is just making a point about our legal system and the way it works. I think he is in aggrement that the decision was wrong….. Sometimes it takes it is better to take the time to read and understand before making a racist accusation. I agree that the example was biased since the law should be applied just because we are all people not depending on our immigration status…. Anyway I do agree that there are a lot of people out there critizing and bringing down mexicans (at least in CA) when the real immigrants in this part of the country are the rest…… And yes…. while I am not from Mexico I am an immigrant so I recent racist comments or suggestions but lets try to keep our comments in perspective.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
John S. I’ve been in the trucking safety business for over 15 years before that 23 years in the Army
October 27th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
There was a lot of “what ifs” in this case. I was wondering, since this kid was 17, he could have very well been a summer worker while out of school for the summer or working after school to make gas money. That’s what I did when I was 17. This article could have been about me as a 17 year old kid that knew nothing about nothing.
We just don’t know all the details, as is the case in most all of these articles. We assume and form our opinions based on three or four paragraphs. We should try to keep that in mind.
As for Safety Guy, I think we all know who the racist is in the crowd. Your comments were loud and clear. I live in a “trailer” and my family, just one generation ago had outhouses, which means my mother grew up using one. I even used one as a kid.
There are racist in all cultures. I use to shoot photos in Hispanic Night Clubs. I was once told to, “go shoot photos of your own kind.” I told the person, “I am, I’m taking photos of people.” I was also told once, “get your white ass outa here.”
The only way we, as a nation, can ever survive racism is to drop all the Africian, Native, Mexican, etc. as prefixes and all be just plain old Americans. Sadly enough, I don’t think that will happen in my lifetime.
Lets all try to stay on the subject matter here and stop throwing our political beliefs around. These discussions should be about people getting injuried and killed, not all this other stuff.
October 28th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Hey Chuck,
I too was army 1972 - 1983. It looks like our paths would not have crossed in the safety field however my last gig was with a company that has over 18000 vehicles nationwide. I was their safety manager in Australia and New Zealand for a couple years. Ring a bell?
I spent my entire time working in the army with NATO. 6 years in Belgium, (SHAPE) and the rest in Norway HQ, AFNORTH.
John S.
November 1st, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I tend to agree with those that say that we don’t have enough evidence. OSHA issued 11 citations; was this before or after the accident? If they were before the accident, then yes, perhaps the company was to blame; however if they were citations issued as a result of the accidnet, then I cannot say for certain the company was to blame.
Just because OSHA says that it was the company that removed the guards, doesn’t make it so. There are plenty of citations fought and won, but written nonetheless.
Without witnesses, it is hard to judge what really happened. I can only imagine that the courts had more information than in this story and therefore made an informed decision.
December 28th, 2010 at 10:21 am
The guards should either be keyed, or require a controlled tool for removal and/or override. This will raise a safety flag and ensure appropriately (safety-minded) personnel are monitoring the situation. The machine tech(s) that removed the guard(s) (or, the machine safety design team) should be on moral trial here. The “Machine Hazard Assessment” is a basic tool we use that requires all involved to assess and mitigate risks, be they mechanical, electrical, chemical, environmental, etc. Please embrace the use of this hazard assessment tool in the industrial community as I feel it is a life (and limb) saving device.
March 4th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Sandy and Safety Guy: Read Paduke’s statement again. He was referring to a case where an ILLEGAL immigrant got worker’s comp for an injury. Where this LEGAL citizen lost his life and got nothing.
Think/read twice before you assume.
August 9th, 2011 at 9:05 am
The family had a right to a wrongful death suit. There were several serious violations and at least one willful, putting the underage employee at risk. I wonder if the courts might see it differently if it was a rich white kid from Connecticut.