Warning: If struck by really heavy object, lifeline might not work
February 7, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: construction safety, Injuries, new court decision, PPE (protective equipment), Special Report, What do you think?
PDF 
A construction worker using a self-retracting lifeline attached to his harness is struck by large, heavy aluminum plates that fell from a crane. The employee is seriously injured and won’t walk again. Should the lifeline have had a warning label stating that, in such situations, the gear might not protect the employee?
Ronald Bacon was working on construction of the Qwest Center Omaha in 2003. One day while working on a second-story fire escape, he had strapped his harness to a self-retracting lifeline.
A crane operator was trying to load pieces of decking, but some of it fell.
A piece or pieces struck Bacon and caused him to fall 12 feet.
Bacon was left paralyzed from the waist down.
He sued DB Industries, the manufacturer of the lifeline.
Robert Pahlke, Bacon’s attorney, said the manufacturer should have warned users that its lifeline could fail if struck.
Attorneys for DB argued that four of the heavy plates, weighing a combined 724 pounds, had hit Bacon’s line.
Pahlke disputed that, saying that only one piece hit the line and it should have held because it has a maximum load capacity of 310 pounds.
The case went to trial. A jury awarded Bacon $21 million — $4 million in past and future medical costs and lost wages and $17 million in noneconomic damages. It’s believed to be the largest jury award in Nebraska history.
An attorney for DB tried to demonstrate how ridiculous it would get if companies warned about every possible risk by using these examples:
- Caution: Be careful when stepping on and off scale. You might fall and hit your head.
- Caution: Remove baby before folding stroller.
- Caution: Hot coffee is hot.
Pahlke used that against the company, telling the jury, “Maybe they think safety is a joke … but you don’t see Mr. Bacon laughing.”
What do you think about the verdict in this case? 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: construction work, harness, lifeline, warning labels
Loading ...
February 8th, 2011 at 8:53 am
I assume that the line is weight rated, and that the addition of the plate weight caused the line to fail. If that is the case, then I don’t see how the line could have protected the worker - it wasn’t designed for the task it faced. And since the event wasn’t planned, or even foreseen, how could the company that designed the line be held at fault?
February 8th, 2011 at 9:18 am
It sounds ridiculous, but there’s really not enough detail in the story to determine whether this is justified or just another ridiculous jury award.
February 8th, 2011 at 9:41 am
I do agree with the outcome. However, there should be more, for Mr. Bacon. What about the crain company or the crain manufacturer. Mr. Bacon is now unable to function in many areas of his life. His wife will suffer due to having to see to his needs, in a different way than what she was used to. Their whole life has changed due to someone’s lack of REAL concern for safety. I am a safety manager and I have been in the place where Mr. Bacon and his family are in. (Of course the injury was not sustained in the exact same manner). But the law does not see or understand the burden paid by the spouse of the victum, and the family (children). This is something that one must experience to know how this kind of situation can effect the intire family. Just to be able to take the family to the store or to church or out for a meal. I agree that it is hard for a person to understand all of the levels of inconveniences that a victum is going to face. Life is not a bed of roses. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people. But if their injuries could have be avoided, Companies, Manufacturers and Employers & Employees should make EVERY effort to do so.
February 8th, 2011 at 9:57 am
The weight of the aluminum plate is hardly the force that hit this man. How far did the plate(s) fall? The falling force is the calculation that should be considered here and not the 310# being mentioned in the article. Also, where is it allowed to carry objects over personnel with a crane? I also have to agree with Todd, the details are not detailed enough for a clear response to this.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:16 am
This is quite ridiculous. My guess is that even if the lifeline had a sticker or label that warned the employee of this hazard, the employee would have never read it. We cannot continue to allow ridiculous lawsuits based upon the lack of warnings for day to day common sense. I believe that this is an insult to safety professionals, companies, and the intelligence of our workforce.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:26 am
There is no way to warn employees about every posibility. To be obsurd about this, there was a show about a young girl struck by a piece of space debris & she did not have any protection. How is it possible to warn or protect everyone from every possibility. I feel for the individual who was injured, however it is not the manufacturer of the lifting harness or life line to predict all harm that could result of outside forces. I am curious what David would recommend as to what efforts companies, manufacturers, employers & employees could have done to prevent this incident. What good would a warning label saying “This device can not withstand outside forces from breaking it” would have made. My argument would be against the persons or company that allowed the aluminum plate to be in a position to fall, not against the manufacturer of the life line that was struck.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:25 am
That’s like putting a warning on a bullet proof vest that it will not work against a rocket launched grenade.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:39 am
A LABEL, Really, come on!!! Was the fall protection equipment supposed to protect the worker, or the load? How is manaufacturer liable for an object striking the equipment? Was the the equipment designed and rated to not fail if struck by a load? Why was the working under a suspended load? Where was the competent person on the worksite, and why was a suspended load allowed to be carried by crane over workers in the first place? Things to make you go hmmmm!
While some sort of judgement was probably warranted, the wrong people may have been held accountable.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:40 am
I hate to say this, but based on the limited information…the crane operator is at fault, not the lifeline company. For the lifeline company to bear the full financial impact is just wrong! Why did the decking fall? Was it secured properly? Additionally, why was the crane operating over personnel? Those are the questions I would be asking the company who employed the crane operator.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:42 am
The comments regarding the crane company and moving material over a person struck a valid note. Was Mr. Bacon working in the location prior to the crane flight beginning? If so, the crane operator was negligent for not notifying all affected workers before beginning the move. If, however Mr. Bacon came into the area under the cranes swing after the lift began he, or his company were negligent in not waiting until the lift was finished.
In either case the requirement to tell the user of fall protection that if we hang a bus on the harness/lanyard with you it won’t stop a fall is ludicrous.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:51 am
So trying to use the same logic as demonstrated in brief here…..if an all terrain lift ran into a ladder supporting a worker causing the ladder to break sending the worker to the ground and the worker was injured …..would it be the fault of the ladder mfg. for not providing a warning to users that being struck by a motor vehicle can cause such a failure? It is a conceiveable jobsite accident - no?
Oddly a jury would likely award in that scenario as well. Construction is risky business …..that said isn’t it the purpose of the fall protection device to provide “restraint” from falls due to worker error and not every conceivable event that could take place…it just sounds unrealistic. If a painter fell on a paint brush that broke and it impaled him would the brush mfg be at fault for not providing a suitable warning and adequate training about that possibility? This is not meant to be in jest.
Yes, why was this worker underneath the hazard zone as the crane was in operation and who was overseeing site safety? Looks like the traditional deep pocket scenario here and whomever had the best product liability insurance coverage is paying the bill. Will a warning that lifelines will not work if struck by large objects causing failure be in the offing? Would that have made a difference in this case? Safety managers know most safety instructions and product manuals go unread.
Workers should not have been under a live load to begin with and of course the sympathies are with the family and worker…..this is just plain awful - what was the safety culture like that allowed this behavior to occur?
Again, who was doing site safety assessments? Was anyone paying attention to the work in progress - like a spotter? This device was not designed to withstand such an event and the calculations of force upon the line seem to be factored in error as James indicated.
Not too much info here to work with. Maybe the jury had more that allowed for this decision.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The safety rope attached to the worker had a tensile strength of 320#. The falling worker and the steel plate together may have been greater than that 320# force. Additionally, we have to remember that the 320# rating is for a perfect length of rope. Fraying, cuts, chemical stains, angle caused by edge of plate all can contribute to lowering the ropes tensile strength.
It seems no arguement educating jurors of tensile strength measurements and effects altering rating value was give. Nor was there arguement concerning assumed understanding of rateing limitations and changes.
I think I would want a safety harness, rope, and anchoring point to accomdatethe weight of two workers free falling 10 or 15 feet. 250# X 2 X 15ft = 7500ft# tenscile strength.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Companies for safety products should attach a catalog of every possible scerio of what their product doesn’t protect against. Safety Glasses - there’s no warning label on those stating tha they don’t prevent objects from bouncing off your cheeks to the inside or your glasses then into your eye. I”ve had that happen and so have a couple other people. It happens.
The liabililty should have been on the crane company. That crane operator is responsible for everything around him. Since the accident was caused by him loosing part of his load, then he is the one that is responsible.
I have have to say the injured party listened to a lawyer and went for where the most money was. They gambled with a sure thing to going for the green backs and won their gamble.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I agree with the award, but not who had to pay it. The employee was not injured because of a lack of a warning label. The lifeline manufacturer did nothing to cause this accident and could not in the future do anything to prevent similar accidents. The employee received the correct compensation, it just came out of the wrong pocket. Everyone agrees , or should, that an employees’ safety is the employers utmost responsibility. How could any semi-intelligent person think that this accident could have been the responsibility of the safety equipment manufacturer. I also think the attorney for DB was a fool to use the examples he/she selected and was not informed about force calculations other than static weight.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I committed a mispelling:
Scenario
That is the word I meant to say.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Terry has it right. The lifeline should not be questioned. The issue lies in how the aluminum plates were rigged for lifting with the crane.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
This is the dumbest trial I’ve ever heard of!!! Lets look at what has been presented to us.
“A crane operator was trying to load pieces of decking, but some of it fell.”
“A piece or pieces struck Bacon and caused him to fall 12 feet.”
“Robert Pahlke, Bacon’s attorney, said the manufacturer should have warned users that its lifeline could fail if struck.”
An aluminum plate weighing approximately 724/4=181# fell across rope. “Pahlke disputed that, saying that only one piece hit the line and it should have held because it has a maximum load capacity of 310 pounds.”
How does anyone in the court room concider the rateing of the safety rope and not the liability of the crane, and the riggers who riged the load.
They all need to go fishing and see how fish wrap your line around rocks and submerged tree limbs and break off the line.
ANOTHER TRUE STORY- An office working principal of a sign company went into the shop and was moving a load of heavy signs by crane and track. the load very slowly swung and crushed a finger between the load and stock that was on the side. The princilal loss the first digit on his finger.
maybe the principal should have sued the crane manufacturer for not warning that a load could swing in other directions than the track direction or maybe that even a very very slow swing with a heavy load can cause a crushing injury.
HOPEFULLY THE ROPE MFGR.’S WORKERS COMP, PT. II EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE WILL PASS THIS LOSS ONTO THE CRANE AND RIGGING COMPANIES.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
There is plenty of blame to go arround on this on. however; I beleive it starts with the worker himself. Are we as workers not the first line of defense when it comes to our own safety? shouldn’t the worker extricate himself from a potentially dangerous situation. If Ronald Bacon was working somewhere and he smelled gas, would he not get away from the area? Does not the same responsibility apply to other potentialy dangerous situations? Like working under or in close proximity to a suspended load. What about the competent person for the crane co. Did they have a lift plan? was a competent person on site? what about the GC’s safety manager or safety representative? where were they during a crital lift. As I said before there is plenty of blame to go around on this, and I feel for Mr bacon. However because of the things I stated earlier I think the award was not only way too excessive, but levied against the wrong people.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
OH DEAR GOD! What a ridiculous ruling! Let’s go after the crane operator’s Mother too….she should be fair game as well. After all, had she not birthed him, none of this would have happened. Might as well get his Dad too. Had Dad been sterile, again, this wouldn’t have happened. I hope you hear the sarcasm in this but, sadly enough, it’s not too far from the truth. Stupid ruling.
February 8th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
If anyone should be held responsible for that accident, it should be his employer for allowing (read not training staff better) crane to lift load directly over an employee. The safety harness is not meant to support the person and an additional load whether falling or not. The safety harness company should appeal the decision, but unfortunately it is not likely they would win on appeal either.
In our over litigous society, guilt is often assigned where it does not belong. It is a sad but true fact. The lady that sued McDonald’s for the hot coffee incident, should never have recived money to reimburse her for her own NEGLIGENCE! It was not negligence on the part of the restaurant nor the company for her actions that she took AFTER she had taken possession of the coffee. Once she had paid for the coffee and had it in her possession, it was up to her to use due diligence to protect herself. Instead she chose to act negligently, and as a result burned herself quite severely. I realize this story is not related to the one in the article, however the principle behind them is quite similar… The company in each case was sued because of something they had absolutely no control over, which in and of itself is ridiculous.
February 8th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
While the only information we have on this case is in the above story, it would appear that the jurors were swayed not by the facts, but by the emotions of this case. (note the barriesters comment regarding safety as a joke) I agree with others in that the worker should be compensated, but the line manufacturer is not the party who should pay. Hopefully this would be appealed to a higher court and hopefully someone there has more than a fifth grade math education to understand the force exerted by plummeting metal plates. Mr. Bacon also should be questioned as to why he was in this area during the lift as well.
February 8th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
This is a truly bizarre judgement based on the information in the article. Clearly someone is to blame for this accident, as in someone on the jobsite, not the manufacturer of the lifeline. Even in such a brief article it’s easy to see that safety violations were being committed by those involved. How obvious does it have to be that any device can fail when subjected to unforseen damaging forces?What I find most baffling of all is the aparent assumption that a label on the lifeline would have somehow steered this confluence of unsafe practices to a better outcome.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Unfortunately this is just a bad situation all around. I have been on both sides of incidents such as this and can understand the need for copensation to be paid to the injured party. From the limited information provided it appears that there are many contributing factors at play and all of them contributed to this unfortunate accident. Although I feel for the injured party it does seem to me that he listened to an attorney who saw dollar signs in a manufacturer’s deep pockets.
There is NO piece of protective equipment that is fail proof and all pieces should be treated as such. Much the same as multiple other opinions posted above I have to say that we can put a warning on anything but will anyone actually read and apply the information? I have to say that they won’t. All of this being said, in the hierarchy of risk reduction isn’t PPE at the bottom?
These lawsuits and others just like them need to be eliminated all around. We work in a dangerous buisness and things are going to happen, the best we can hope and work for is to reduce the severity of these incidents. Lawsuits like this one give safety a bad name and completely disrespect the entire industry. Wrong company, wrong reasons.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Nobody here mentions the root cause although many have mentioned the crane and the crane operator. I can’t imagine why the safety precautions of the crane and operator were not brought into this case. Did they have safety procedures and were they following them? If so, why did the decking fall? Sounds like a clear cut case of unsafe procedures by the crane operator but we really don’t have enough details about the case to determine that.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
I agree with the other comments that the line manufacturer was not at fault here. Those at fault were the ones on the job site that were overseeing the operation of the crane and the rigging. I also believe that the settlement was a ridiculous amount. That is what is causing so many price increases in society.
February 9th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
CLARIFYING fEEDBACK: Most of us have been pointing to the crane operation company. Do we really mean that or is there a differentiation between the crane operator and the rigging crew operation. I’m thinking that there is and that theseare generally two distinct operations and companies. Please advise as to your knowledge of construction site operations.
Ray
February 9th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
This is silly. I agree with him winning the suit but not because it didn’t have a warning label saying it could fail to work if hit by a heavy object; he should win the suit because it failed period. If it did have a warning label on it, the plate would have hit the warning label and had the same results; it failed.
February 10th, 2011 at 9:37 am
The only thing the line is designed to help in a fall is the person wearing it. It is not designed to protect against anything else and COMMON SENSE - that most UNcommon attribute - should have brought the court to the same conclusion. I agree that if anyone were to be held liable, it would be the crane operator for lifting a load with someone in harm’s way, or the employer for allowing such an unsafe condition to exist. No way is the line manufacturer at fault. I wonder if the article is giving us all the facts. The award just seems too illogical.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:22 am
After reading this I’ve realized that I have been negligently been placing my workers in a risky situation everyday and I have exposed myself to an unknown dollar judgement. I have suspended all work until I resolve this dangerous issue that I have placed them in. I now know that everytime they put safety glasses on that they have needless been exposed to a very serious risk. I am in the process of getting 3′x6′ placards made up to attach to ALL safety glasses. The placard will start with the proper way to put the glasses on. Do you realize that everytime you put those glasses on that there is a forseeable hazard of poking yourself in the eye. Come on people!!! Think of the number of exposures over the course of the day. Of course these warnings will need to be in at least a dozen or so different languages and written by the noblest class of all, lawyers. There are so many other possible hazards to be written in all those different dialects that the 3′x6′ placards just will not be big enough. In fact you would need warning labels for the placards with all those warnings.
Screw it. I think I’m heading for the wilderness, live like a caveman and try to start this damn civilization over. If we have anybody that starts talking like an attorney, they will be hung with a rope that will be littered with beaucoup warning labels.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Tin Cup - You are so right; this judgment is sooooooooo laughable.
February 17th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Prime example of why we have so many warning labels on various tools and equipment. 99% of the time there was a lawsuit attached to each of those stickers. Why cant a judge just say “you are stupid for using the product that way… No money is awarded…”
February 28th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
for me, the rigging crew has faults… the area covered by the lift should have been barricaded… if there were barricades installed, then the question should be, “why is the victim there..?”
in a refinery where i had a project as a safety inspector, there was an accident involving a foreman, a trench and a crane… the foreman was inspecting the covered trench… the crane and the rigging crew came and set up the crane…the outriggers was almost beside the edge of the covered trench… then bam!! trench gave way and the foreman buried…lucky he survived… the rigging crew lacked doing inspection and of course the distance of the outrigger from the trench…
back to the case, there should be someone accountable for the incident but the victim pointed his finger on the wrong guy… as to the court/jury who granted, i dunno what to say…i am DUMBfounded…
as to the label thingy…i came across one signage “when using forklift, use your brain coz the forklift doesn’t have one…” this label should always come with any safety gadget…
March 1st, 2011 at 10:38 am
Ludicrous. I really feel bad for the worker who sustained the injury, but, from the article, the blame is misplaced - what about the persons responsible for the construction project?, why were those two processes being simultaneously completed? Why was a crane load above the worker? what about the companies fault in training the worker to plan the job? Was it thorough training? Did the worker not follow training? or did the company not properly train him? What kind of monitoring was done by his company - had he done this before when nothing happened? Was the job behind schedule? So many questions but THE LABELING ON THE FP GEAR HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INJURY SUFFERED BY THE EMPLOYEE…preposterous!!!
October 13th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I do not agree with the findings.
I agree that Mr Bacon should be compensated, but NOT by the manufacturer of the Safety Harness. The harness was rated for 310lbs, and PART of a 724lb plate struck the harness…in my view part of 724lbs is still 724lbs.
Mr bacon should not have been working under the crane in the first place..Is this not a common safety rule? Do not stand/work under a lifted load!
Mr Bacon is partially responsible for his own actions and may be the crain operators (ie the rigger and operator) should take some or the responsibility.