Jury awards $10 million in worker fatality
April 20, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: construction safety, contractor safety, cost of safety, Falls, Fatality, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, new court decision
A jury in Alabama awarded $10 million to a woman whose husband died in a workplace incident in 2008.
Christopher Dupree fell about 150 feet while painting a water tank in Hurtsboro, AL.
Paramedics tried to revive him, but he was pronounced dead at the scene.
The local sheriff’s department said Dupree was suspended from a rope on top of the water tower and was wearing a harness, but it appeared there might have been some malfunction of the safety equipment that caused the fall. Dupree was one of three workers at the tank that day.
At first, Dupree’s wife sued her husband’s employer, a general contractor, the Russell County Water Authority and an engineering firm. However, the lawsuit was later amended to focus on Robinson and Sons Construction Services, because it was responsible for workplace safety on the project.
In closing arguments, the lawyer for Dupree’s wife asked jurors to return a verdict that would send a message to all employers that they must provide a safe working environment for employees.
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: Fatality, fell 150 feet, jury verdict
Loading ...
April 20th, 2010 at 8:44 am
[...] more from the original source: Jury awards $10 million in worker fatality | SafetyNewsAlert.com … Posted in industrial safety | Tags: 150-feet, alabama, dupree, husband-died, industrial [...]
April 20th, 2010 at 11:52 am
The only message that sends is that lawyers are greedy.
April 20th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
$10 million is too much for the only irreplacabe thing on this earth? A persons life?
To me it is not too much
Safety Equipment is supposed to prevent this. How could it be faulty unless it was not inspected or maintained as it should be.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I agree with John, greedy lawyers. Seems to me the victim was negligent to some extent in inspecting his own equipment and using it safely.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
1 or 10 million dollars.. no amount of money will replace the emotional loss of a family member. The message that should be respected by all safety professionals is that we must be diligent in our training, processes and hazard recognition. We must treat all tasks as if they have our own lives at risk.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:22 pm
D F
I agree 100%. The safety equipment must be inspected everytime prior to using it, if something is not right, replace it.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I understand DF’s comments, however, the last person to have inspected the harness equipment should have been the victim himself. If he was properly trained in regards to wear and fitness of the harness and suspension equipment, this trajedy may have been prevented.
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
There are never enough facts in these stories to comment appropriately, but here goes it. Safety equipment is used to keep us safe, but if it is not properly maintained and regularly inspected than it may not be able to live up to its function to keep us safe. Therefore if they were able to prove without a doubt that the safety equipment wasn’t safe due to improper maintenance and regular inspections, than the law suite would apply. However if the equipment was faulty due the manufacturer, than that should shift all focus off the construction companies involved and place it at the manufactures door. Safety should never be taken lightly by any individuals such as employers, workers, and manufacturers. Where I work our motto is SAFETY FIRST.
Sincerely,
Kim
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:35 pm
The local sheriff’s depaqrtment said “it appeared there might have been some malfunction of the safety equipment.” Since when is the local sherriff’s department in charge of investigating industrial accidents? Since when is 10M awarded on the statement “it appeared there might have been?” Could use some better facts.
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:27 am
“Safety Equipment is supposed to prevent this. How could it be faulty unless it was not inspected or maintained as it should be.” or installed properly. Lifelines and lanyards break fairly easliy over an edge of any kind.
Would be nice to know the details of what happened for our benefit.
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:03 am
I agree that there insufficient info was presented in the article to make a fair evaluation of what happened and who was responsible. If the harness failed, why did it fail? Would a thorough inspection have prevented it? There may have been a defect that a normal inspection would have missed. Also, “greedy lawyers” are always a convenient target, however, lawyers did not award the plantiff $10 million, the jury did. They obviously felt there was some merit to the claim. Everybody loves to hate lawyers, until they need one. (P.S. I am not a lawyer).
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:47 am
If it really was a malfunction of equipment, shouldn’t the equipment manufacturer be responsible? If it wasn’t, how come the victim doesn’t take any responsibility. I wouldn’t do the job if my safety equipment was not up to par.
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:58 am
I googled this and found that the award was “punitive damages” and that OSHA had inspected the worksite and found several safety violations. The jury deliberated 90 minutes. The suits were dismissed against all other plaintiffs and focused on the Construction company because they were responsible for the safety culture and the equipment.
I agree that there is little to go on to see how the jury made this determination, but apparently enough was presented so that the jury had no problem reaching this verdict.
Greedy lawyers, well yes, if I every need a lawyer I want someone who is GREEDY and SUCESSFUL. But that is just me…
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:22 am
So according to DH, everyone who drove a Toyota should have inspected the gas pedal before driving. If it looked safe then it was the drivers fault when the pedal stuck. You gotta love it.
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I disagree with Rg’s comparison. The obvious difference between your two scenarios is that in the case of the Toyota vehicles I doubt an individual was specifically trained to perform the type of inspection needed to detect a faulty gas pedal. However, the employee SHOULD have been (I don’t have the facts in front of me to say that he was indeed) properly trained in how to inspect his fall protection equipment. With any and every company I’ve ever worked for/with, inspection of PPE, including fall protection equipment, always included a thorough explanation of how to inspect the equipment to keep it in good working order. If the employee was properly trained to inspect his fall protection equipment and failed to do so, you can’t completely dismiss his fault in this. Just a thought.
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Inspection or not, the problem with personal fall protection is, you don’t if or how it will work until you fall. That is a bad time to find out it doesn’t work like you think.
Equipment manufacturers could be held liable and often times are named in this type of claim but either settle out before trial or defend themselves against a defective product or warning claim. Misuse is usually the issue.
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
correction, you don’t know if or how it will work until you fall.
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Something you need to understand about Alabama we are known for the huge amounts awarded on lawsuits. If this would have been a nationally known construction company then the settlement would have been $100 million plus
April 27th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Safety equipment in good condition AND used properly will save lives. There is extensive testing done on ALL safety equipment before it is sold. If the worker was trained to use the equipment and did not use it properly then the injury was his own fault. If the safety equipment was faulty (not detectable by normal inspection) or if the company refused to replace the equipment after showing signs of age then the company is at fault for not providing adequate safety equipment.
There are not enough details in the article to determine what actually happened.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:48 am
The company that purchased and supplied the equipment was responsible to ensure the equipment is safe and operational. Harnessing up and falling off a chair onto a mattress could be a test. If the equipment was faulty the manufacturer and the employer/contractor are both responsible. The employer for not conducting a risk assessment before issuing the equipment and if it is faulty by the manufacturer and not able to be discovered in the risk assessment the manufacturer.
Most workers just use equipment so the employer should have regular scheduled testing, in any type of medical setting from acute care hospitals to rehab facilities to psy. centers are required to have a scheduled testing program. Any and all equipment failures be it equipment failure to user error has to be investigated using a method called “Root Cause Analysis” that is to see if there is contributing factors from equipment errors or failures to user errors and a corrective action has to be implemented immediately to eliminate the problem. In-addition all medical facilities that are certified must have an ongoing Safety and Security mandated program at least annually for the facility and also with individual departments.
Just think of being in any medical facility any you have a heart attack the ASL is brought to be used to save your life but it does not work! After your life is saved with manual CPR a couple of your ribs are broken during the procedure. Then you find out the reason the machine did not work is batteries are dead and they are dead because there is no monitoring of the efficacy of the batteries.
Any and all Safety Management Equipment has to be inspected upon its receipt by the company buying it and then after that and on a schedule. Manufacturers are pretty good at giving guidelines on Safety Equipment Maintenance including the frequency of part replacement and/or the expected life of the equipment.
I know there is much lamenting over the workers that do not follow safety precautions or using PPE and then using it properly. If the management of a company is proactive in Safety Management and constantly training workers most workers will follow the rules. But the managers and supervisors have to be serious and the guidelines have to be shared and the employees trained depending on the equipment on a scheduled basis but never less than annually.
From this article even though there is not a-lot of information but the whole thing gives me a case of the horrors. Just the thought of putting on a safety harness being up 150 feet to paint and the harness failed. I would like to see the written follow-up investigation on that tragic incident.
As far as the Police or Fire Fighters assessing safety equipment I would feel more comfortable with their assessment than someone who does not deal with life and death on a daily basis. These folk are given a lot of training in how to handle and make assessments in many situations including Safety Management. They could not function without extensive safety training to protect the public as well as to take care of themselves and their coworkers.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:34 am
OOOPppps
Paragraph 5 should read
I know there is much lamenting over the workers that do not follow safety precautions or using PPE and then not using it properly. If the management of a company is proactive in Safety Management and constantly training workers most workers will follow the rules. But the managers and supervisors have to be serious and the guidelines have to be shared and the employees trained depending on the equipment on a scheduled basis but never less than annually.
May 11th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
DF…
As usual we have very little go on; there are way too many variables to make a rational conclusion.
I hate to burst your bubble, but police and fire are NOT given “lot’s” of Safety Managment training, most are NOT trained in industiral accidents, and therefore they are not “subject matter experts.” Just because they deal with life and death does not qualify them in mishap investigations. That is not a function of police and fire in most cities of the U.S. Are there police and fire that are trained in fall protection equipment? Sure, very few police and a select group of fire.
I know, I served as a firefighter for 20+ years.
May 11th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Sadly enough, that’s where unions come in to require the inspections and safety of the workers. Many times employers want to minimize their expenses and take short cuts… but at the cost of what degree? Personally, I know my own father has a steel pipe in his leg from a 100+ foot fall because of faulty safety equipment. Lucky for us, he lived to tell about it. To the family for their loss, my thoughts go out to you.
May 12th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Unions? You gotta be kidding me? OSHA/ANSI require the inspections of fall protection equipment not unions! I have yet to see a “union contract” that has fall protection language in it. Are there some that do? Sure; but few and far between.
Following OSHA standards are “conditions of emoployement” in most contracts.