Sneaking a leak proves deadly; family sues
February 1, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: Bizarre Accident of the Week, Fatality, Special Report, Transportation safety, Workers' comp
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.
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: garbage truck, intentional wrong exception, truck backed over him, workers' compensation
Loading ...
February 1st, 2010 at 8:13 am
Maybe the truck should have a sign that says “Use common sense at all times”
February 1st, 2010 at 11:28 am
The court made the right decision. And the family should have to reimburse the township for their frivolous suit!
February 1st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I’m still concerned about the peeing aspect. Why was he peeing in a garbage truck? Was that one of the uses? How about number 2 and did he have a good magazine. Everything else is BS. People goof off and expect a company to pay the price. What a sad world we live in. Had he waited and gone to McDonalds to pee he would have been ok. God knows there is a McDonalds or gas station every few blocks.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Yes, I agree with the court ruling on this case. Its about time a judge with commonsense realized that employees should be held responsible for their own actions.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:06 pm
It would be nice to know why worker injuries are happening with regards to the platforms. Is it because they don’t have both hands on the handles above the platform? If these aren’t standard issue platforms, then I think the company is at fault, even though the warnings had been issued. In particular, the company is at fault because they clearly were not enforcing their own rules.
If platforms “have” to be used, perhaps there should be some kind of built-in safety feature. A cage, weight sensors, or other sensors. Sensors could feed back into the trucks transmission and override speeding above 10mph or backing up with weight on the handles or platform, etc. Which seems like overkill.
Ultimately, the company needs to have a self-enforcing workforce, supported by a cultural safety overhaul. Very sad.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:35 am
The best part of this story is reading from those who firmly believe the family should be compensated.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:44 am
The court was absolutely correct in it’s decision!
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 am
A family should not expect a payday because a member of that family is an idiot.
I feel sad for the loss of a life, but this idiot knew the rules/regulations and laws.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:34 am
The court made the correct decision. However, I would bet those steps are removed from trucks as soon as the smoke settles…
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:36 am
What is the standard in that town? Do the townspeople see the garbage men riding on the back of the trucks regularly? I know that I see that occuring regularly in certain areas. Even if the town put out flyers, pamplets and had warning signs on the trucks, if this is standard or even common and the town did not have a disciplinary policy that was enforced for this behavior the family is entititled. You have to remember that a man died. No one can say that they have not seen this situation, men riding on the back of garbage trucks, happen and be telling the truth.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 am
It’s about time the courts start standing up to idiots. I work for a waste hauling company and one of our rules is about riding on the back of the truck. They pound it into our heads. The person most responsible for me should be ME.
I agree with John, the family should pay the company back for the company’s cost to fight the case.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 am
Its New Jersey. What do you expect?
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:02 am
NO! The employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace. You cannot install an unsafe piece of equipment and put a sign on it not to use it! Employer is at fault fo allowing the step installation.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:13 am
If worker’s are provided training in the hazards of their job and choose to ignore safe work practices, they should not be entitled to worker’s compensation. However, that’s one of the major problems with the worker’s comp system today. I am surprised at the outcome of this case though. In Michigan, it would not have mattered that he was warned and failed to heed the warnings. If it happened as a result of his job, death benefits would likely have been paid. If I were that family, I would have been embarrassed to sue just based on the fact that the man was preparing to urinate in the back of the truck….disgusting!
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 am
The company certainly covered all the bases. I wonder if training and supervision was an issue. Sometimes it isn’t enought to distribute literature and post signs. Frequent training in addition to a thorough orientation is also a requisite. I’m guessing the company proved that since they did win the case.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:36 am
family is merely trying to cash-out on his death, the proper trasining was given and the man ignored the protocol and paid with his life, sad,..but in no way the companies fault.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
I agree with John.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
I feel the court made the right decision.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:10 am
John I,
before saying that the step wasunsafe one must understand why the step was installed. was it installed to gain access into the truck, was it actually a guard to prevent damage to the back end or was it a platfrom to ride on. let’s not assume. with the facts given i feel TB in MI is correct. death benefits would be paid in other states.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:11 am
I am appalled at your headline. Whatever you may think of this man’s actions and his family’s actions, he died. “Sneaking a leak” is crude and disrespectful to this man’s life. Shame on you for using this as an opportunity to use twisted humor.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 am
in one hand, the employee was clearing using the platform for the wrong purpose and although it might be recordable, not compensable.
on the other, was the platform properly guarded with a standard railing and toe guard as possibly required by 1910.23(c)(3) ?
tough questions but the judge made the right decision.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 am
Seems like the company did issue plenty of warning regarding the platform; however one important piece of information missing is whether or not they applied for some type of waiver or exception (like for OSHA std’s) to the ANSI ruling, that is if such a process exists within ANSI. Although I am in favor of the court’s ruling given the information presented above (because the worker still could’ve been ran over without the platform) the family does have a strong argument regarding the platform. I don’t necessarily agree they’re out to make money off it - they did in fact lose a family member.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
If the warnings are posted and the pamphlets are passed out, were they in mulitple languages? No one should die and due to their own negligence it seems worse. The family probably did not know that he was not following the rules. The step is there for his benefit and he knows he was to step off when the back up alram started with the truck moving in reverse. It is a shame that we cannot compensate for stupidity. The court was correct, even if it is a hardship on his family. There is not an open checkbook at every accident.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:43 am
No doubt in my mind that the guy was a slug. But unless he deliberately killed himself (which is unlikely) he was injured on the job and his heirs should receive compensation. Workers’ Compensation is insurance for the work related injury/illness. Unfortunately even if the worker clearly violated the company rules whether it be not properly wearing PPE, speeding, or improperly operating equipment. Some states will reject benefits if a post injury drug and alcohol test are postitive.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:48 am
shame he died,but why do people try to make out on a fools lack of common sence?
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
Chuck, that is what life insurance is for. To cover the stupid acts people feel free to do whenever they feel like it at work or during their free time. Why should the employer be penalized for doing their job properly.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:03 am
Most of the readers say the same thing, it was an unfortunate accident but I believe the judge was correct. I don’t care how many sensors or hand rails are installed, It is a piece of equipment,it has inherant risks and procedures are in place. It is things like this that cause misguided rules and regulations along with unaffordable insurance. One comedian said it the best “you can’t fix stupid”
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:08 am
The step was clearly installed for the convenience of the employees so that they would not have to constantly be climbing into the truck or running to the next stop. The company took into account that hazards do exist when the truck is backing or travel in excess of 10 miles per hour. They took precautions to eliminate possible injury. The employee chose to ignore those precautions and it cost him his life (sad). The court made the right decision and I believe that the family should pay for all costs associated with this case.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 am
I agree that the court did the right thing. As far as the step being placed there, as pointed out by John I, I disagree with his thought that a step being put on the back makes it a company provided unsafe work environment. It could have been placed there to allow them to retrieve an item from the back that was thrown in by mistake. That does not mean it was provided to ride on. There are a lot of places that are unsafe at times, but not at other times. I have a step on the side of my pickup truck to allow access to the bed. That does not mean I should ride on it down the highway.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Where were the employees expected to urinate. Were adequate stops allowed when needed? Why would they modify the equipment if they didn’t want the employee to use it? I think that this family could push this in open court and win a larger settlement than they would have under comp.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:30 am
The court did make the right decision. Adhering to company policy is the employees first obligation to the employer and responsibility to thier coworkers. Initial training had been completed, warnings and decals in place, since the direct cause of the incident was not appartently due to a lack of skill, training was not the answer. This is an enforcement issue required to change behavior, maybe this right ruling will help others in the industry get the message that they ultimately control thier behaivor and compliance with company safety policies especially when work tasks are done in uncontrolled/un-supervised locations.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:33 am
Are you kidding me? Platforms with weight sensors and cages? Does that mean that I need to install a sensor on the top 2 steps of my ladders that sounds a buzzer to alert me when someone steps on them?
The platforms were likely meant to aid workers as they loaded trash into the back of the truck. Warning labels all over the place and training clearly informed the employee that it was not to be used for ridding. He decided to ignore all of them and paid with his life. Glad the court made the right decision.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:44 am
Scott nailed it right on the money. Just because a piece of equipment is provided (or modified) by a company so that it serves a specific purpose, does not give an employee license to use it for everything. So long as the modification serves a safe purpose and the employees are trained and trained and trained on the risks inherent to that modification, the company has not violated their obligation to provide a safe work place.
Workmen’s Comp was created to protect workers and their families from companies and management that did not care about their well being. It’s purpose is to provide help to an employee and his family when he was hurt by the negligence of his employer. Not every one who gets hurt or killed on the job fits this requirement.
When an employee gets hurt or killed it is always an extremely sad situation but that, by it’s self, does not trigger workmen’s comp. The employer has to be shown to willfully or negligently put the life at risk. Kudos to this judge…he got it right!
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:49 am
I am a little unclear on the definition of “death benefits”. If they are refering to workers comp death benefits administered by the state I do not understand why the company got sued. If they are asking for money in addition to the workers comp benefits as the court language seens to imply the judge is entirely correct. States which have workers comp as the only legal recourse for a work related injury bar workers from seeking additional compensation unless it is a case of repeated or willful disregard for the worketrs safety. This does not seem to be the case. John I seems a little over the top. A workers death does not magically turn a his employer into an ATM with an unlimited stack of cash. This thought process is part of the reason for soaring workers comp and insurance costs. People need to take responsibility for their actions. The guy did something that he was repeatedly told was unsafe.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:53 am
I agree with the court decision. It is the cost of frivolous lawsuits like this that make employers look to eliminate workers. I notice trucks with the self loading apperatus now, thus eliminating one worker per truck. Quite a savings as well as a decrease in liability. Of course, the same people who believe the company is liable for this incident will also decry the elimination of workers. Always looking for someone else to be responsible for them and take care of them.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Two words for you…”Personal Responsibility”. Plain & Simple. Why should a supervisor need to be employed to follow to make sure someone doesn’t try to pee off the truck? Ridiculous.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
The courts were right. You can all keep focusing on the platform if you want but the guy was in no way was using the provided hand rails and even on ladders you have to have 3 points of contact. It was not the fact he was onthe platform but the fact that he was not holding on to the hand rails.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I need to respond to Michelle David: The company cannot be responsible for this! Should the driver have gone to the back of the truck to phisically see if the idiot was out of the way. What is to say the idiot would not jump back on.
The family should be paying the court costs of both parties here for nothing more than a nuisance suit, shot in the dark hope we get a sympathetic judge.
How far does the company have to go here! Training and pamphlets did not get the point across. Should the employer electrify the platform while in reverse, that would keep the employees the platform.
Please do not think i am not sympathetic for the family, but if we are to turn or world around from a sue happy world we need to start applying common sense.
I will speak from experience, my brother was caught in a piece of farm equipment about 20 years ago. Should my family have sued the equipment manufacturer for not having enough signs on the equipment? Should there have been a sign that says if you get too close to this bad things could happen? My brother lost his leg to almost the knee, my family did not sue, it was very obvious that had he not put his foot where he did he would still have his leg.
I do not agree with the idea that when people lose their common sense that someone or a company is liable!
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Yes, I definitely agree. And as for the replies with questions about the platform, if you just read alittle of the information given above, “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.”
Th platform is clearnly used to unclog or clear debris that has gotten trapped not as a platform to pee of of.
I am agreeing with everyoone else. It’s about time we held the employee responsibile for their own unsafe risky actions, not the employer!
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:42 pm
To you bunch of idiot safety reps commenting on this story (I used to be one but unlike you I got out of the office once in a while). Did the rider of the truck (the dead guy) put it in reverse? Did the rider of the truck (the dead guy) exceed 10 mph. No to both counts. Did he break the rule posted on the side of the truck that is clearly common practice and ALLOWED by the employer regardless of training and CYA pamplets (which OSHA would say ‘negated the effectiveness of the training’), no. He got on the platform provided by the employer when the vehicle was being operated in a manner that would allow use of the platform. If he jumped off when the truck went above 10 mph or threw it in reverse, you’d all be calling him an idiot when his head hit the curb and he died. While we are all frustrated with unfortunate workplace incidents, they do happen and that is why we have WC insurance. The family deserves the benefit they believed they were being provided during the employment. And FYI, the only thing the judge got right is that the allegation of the intent to urinate is irrelevant.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad the court ruled in favor of the hauler. I am suprized that they ruled that way. I’ve had several incidents that were clearly the fault of the injured worker that were ruled in his favor because “BWC is not concerned with who is at fault only that a worker was hurt/killed”.
One of them included a driver who was required to remain in a driver’s room during the loading of acid. He took it upon himself to leave the room and go to the loading site because it was taking an unusually long time to load. To make matters worse he did not wear the prescribed PPE. As he approached the site a pipe ruptured spraying acid on his unprotected body. He was granted Temporary Disability benefits based on their stand that they belived that WC was that employee’s fault is never considered unless the act was deliberate.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Mr. Not an idiot safty rep,
Why do you have to go down the road of insulting people you don’t know in making your points? In doing so, you neither provide anything relevent, and additionally a sign of stupidity. Makes me wonder whether your venture outside was something you wanted, or if it was something that you were forced to do, as clearly your communication skills are lacking. However, in fairness, you do make a good point about CYA pamphlets and documentation. I would hope that a thorough investigation (which we know nothing about, but must assume so) was completed, which included monitoring by Supervision and Management, which added teeth to the literature that was passed about. I thoroughly disagree that we have WC insurance for anyone that gets hurt. I believe the employer carrys WC, in the event that if he fails to provide a safe working environment, there is some method by which the employee is compensated and the business remains viable. That is the key, DID THE EMPLOYER DO HIS BEST TO PROVIDE A SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT? That is for the lawyers to argue and the judge to decide. If I were a betting man, the Supervision did do a good job of monitoring this process or this case would not have been decided as it was…
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
If you think that getting out of the office makes you a good safety rep, that you are the idiot. First of all, you appear to be the only one here accusing people of being idiots because they do not agree with you. I spend more time out in my plant in one day that you probably do in a month. I have also known many “Safety Reps” that spend a lot of time in the field and still don’t have a clue. Remember the old rule about pointing fingers. Second, if you were being sued because you hit someone in your car that means you should pay. Let’s not take in to consideration that the person you hit was jaywalking, and just stepped out in front of you. Better yet, how about the kid that grabs on to the back of your car while riding a skate board so you can pull him along. If he gets hurt does that make you at fault? Just because he was an idiot does not make it someone else’s responsibility to take care of his stupidity.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I disagree. The company installed the platform on the back of the truck. One has to wonder why. The company was negligent in installing a piece of equipment that was never meant to be used knowing that individuals would undoubtedly use it, even if they were warned against using the platform. I would appeal the decision.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Let’s use comparable scenario:
If there are handle bars & step platform on the sides of pick up trucks, why don’t I ever see a sign or instruction that riding in them while the vehicle is moving will or may result in serious injury or death yet I’ve never seen or heard of anyone suing from injury or death the manufacturers or dealers that installed them on the pick trucks? I am sure people have been injured & died from doing so.
This story just tells you that you are responsible for your own actions even worst that there are warning signs issued.
I feel bad for the family though for their loss.
Hopefully the garbage company atleast approved the company provided life insurance, that is if they even have any, the insurance company may say that it is not covered too but then that is a matter the court (civil) have to figure out if in fact the family doesn’t get anything at all from the company & they don’t sue in that court.
GO FIGURE.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I think that most of you are confusing WC with OSHA. WC is an insurance to the worker and company for the event that a injury/death takes place. OSHA is intended to be the watchdog for safety in the work place.
The guy is dead as a result of him coming to work and getting killed on the job, so death benefits should have been awarded. The court was wrong.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
This is addressed to “not an idiot safty rep”. Before you insult people, you should check your spelling. Last time I checked “safty” should be spelled like this “safety.” Your comments hold a lot less validity when you are calling others idiots and you can’t even spell safety correctly. There is a old saying about “the pot calling the kettle black.”
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Lisa, I would respectfully disagree with your assessment. The platform was installed for a reason or it would not be there, nor would the signage be posted to align its use. The question then becomes “were the employees trained appropriately in its use?” If so, the question evolves to “were rules appropriately monitored to ensure employee compliance?” I believe all of those questions were most likely addressed during the course of deciding the case. However, an appeal is most likely underway - but if the employer has, in deed, completed due dilligence - I would expect this decision to stand…
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:02 pm
To clarify: IF the company posts a policy (sign etc.) that says an employee is not supposed to do something (or IS supposed to do something) and they train the workers about the issue, and they FAIL TO ENFORCE the policy (or do not have an enforcement policy), then the employer is at fault because they are not effectively controlling worker behavior, and as such, are not providing a safe workplace.
I believe that workers are absolutely responsible for their own actions. I also believe that safety is a culture. If a company does not enforce their policies or makes policies that are not designed for the work environment, then worker compliance will never be achieved, and the employer is failing its employees.
What seems obvious in this case is that someone was not doing their job properly. If they were, the incident would not have happened. It could have been a driver action, it could have been the victim’s action, and it could have been the employer’s action (or lack of it). Based on current OSHA regs, failure to enforce a policy means that the employer is responsible for the death.
Besides, this seems pretty clear to me (straight from OSHA):
Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, often referred to as the General Duty Clause, requires employers to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees”. Section 5(a)(2) requires employers to “comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act”.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I have to ask this …So, If the employer has not “done enough” to maintain their safety on a garbage truck. What… are they supposed to do? Hire another employee to go along to make sure that no one is on the back of the truck while backing?
Sounds quite ridiculous to me or better yet should someone from management be there to double check the person hired to monitor the person who is supposed to be monitoring the backing up of the truck.
So, Michelle look this up also, What does OSHA say about warning employees of potential dangers. There is no way this job can be made completely safe. So, what does OSHA say?
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Two things in this thread stand out and make sense to me — Common Sense and Personal Responsibility. Both were lacking in what we know of the story. As to whether or not the court was right, I’d have to know more about the WC laws in New Jersey — I think in Colorado, the family would have been paid the death benefit because WC seems to be no-fault here.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Right on Michelle. I’ve seen it happen where a constructoin worker fell through a hole to his death because he wasn’t wearing his safety gear. The company got jacked for failing to enforce. Simple training is not enough unfortunately.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
All that is required to prove that a policy was enforced is to show a dicipline record. This is why you write up or fire an emloyee who is hurt while disregarding a safety policy such as lock out tag out. In any event I agree with a past poster that many are confusing WC law with OSHA law. They are very different animals and vary greatly from state to state. When a worker dies on the job there is a “death benefit” paid in addition to regular workers comp for medical etc. This is one of the reasons that 7 - 11’s and similar stores pay such high WC rates; when a worker is shot and killed they are due a “death Benefit”. WC judges quite often use OSHA guidelines to determine if this benefit is applicable. In cases where the worker kills themselves such as a case I investigated in a foundry the death benefit can be denied. In the foundry case a maint. worker disabled no less than 4 separate safety devices in order to stick his head into a racetrack type moulder while it was running to see what was causing a “thumping” noise. He literally lost his head for his trouble. His death benefit was denied. He still got his insurance and other benefits. (The company also won the very messy civil suit).
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Mike, that’s exactly it. Disciplinary actions (and records), quizzing employees to ensure that they understand the policies (and having them sign off on it), and periodic audits and monitoring of workers by appropriate personnel (and keeping records) would cover the bases as far as OSHA is concerned. If OSHA shows up on a site and checks that all of the above actions are in place, and the worker still manages to get himself killed, then the employer is not at fault. Especially if their safety records are otherwise in order.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I don’t think a manager needs to deploy with the garbage crew but a QC would be a nice addition to enforcement. For example every 5 days follow a different route to make sure employees are abiding by policy. If not, just like a previous poster said, “Implement progressive discipline” and being able to show a record of employee reprimands any time he commits a safety violation. If this was not enacted it does not require the hiring of an employee but rather safety officer workload changes. Paperwork done three weeks out of every month, out in the field for 1 week? Maybe 7 random days during the month so employee’s aren’t necessarily on their best behavior on visit week? There are creative methods to enforcing policy. This discussion has been very insightful. Hopefully managers can take out the good out of this discussion. Have a great day!
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Truthfully people everyone sees a man or woman on a residential route riding on the back of the truck. If you claim not to you aren’t being honest. If the company or in this case a Township has a policy in place and don’t enforce it they are just as much to blame. I say give the family some compensation, they did lose a loved one and the Township fell flat on their face by not enforcing their own damn rules. Safety begins at the top.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Unless someone is following around/checking on, employees every minute of every day how are you going to know if they are following the safety rules every minute of every day in order to implement disciplinary action? There are always going to be jobs that are dangerous and unless it is blatantly obviously an Employer has not taken adequate steps to train or post warnings, Employee responsibility has to come in to play at some point.
What ever reason(s) the step was intended to be used for, standing on it to urinate was obviously not one of them. Since public urinating is also against the law why would anyone think this something they should be doing in any shape or form?
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:43 am
[...] the original here: Sneaking a leak proves deadly; family sues | SafetyNewsAlert.com … Categories: Humor Tags: although-it-might, beautiful, consider-the-people, dead-critter, [...]
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:45 am
1. The municipality added the step and therefore incurrs the liability of the possible results.
2. The death is unfortunate, refer to #1.
3. No one has mentioned the negligence of the driver. The municipality has trained the operator of the garbage truck, wihch would include the ability to “back up” safely. The driver has the responsibility of the other workers, therefore, refer to #1.
4. THE JUDGE HAS THE DUTY TO DETERMINE RESPONSIBILITY, and award some kind of compensation.
How much is that life worth? PRICELESS
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:19 am
There has been a lot of speculation on whether or not the company was at fault, whether they had an enforcement program and many other senerios concerning this situtation. The fact is that we do not have all of the facts that were presented in the court case. Many points have been given and a lot of good advice is now available. Hopefully we will take all of this and think about what our individual situations are and improve. Thanks for the comments.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:24 am
Ray,while your post is amusing, (Priceless perhaps???), you misinterpert the “duty” of the judge. His task was to determine if the city, (the entity being sued), displayed reasonable care in warning of and policing the safety hazard presented by the step. Based on what was printed this is the case, they did. By your logic a medicine producer is liable for all overdoses simple because they make the medicine regardless of any warnings and instructions on the label. At some point a person is responsible for their actions. Is a parachute manufaturer responsible for a persons death if the person freezes up and fails to pull the rip cord?? Is a car manufacturer responsible for the death of an occupant who fails to put on their safety belt? The answer is no. Just because a person dies on the job or elsewhere does not mean that their family is due a big payday. Sometimes the main reason they died is thier own actions or disregard for safety requirements.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:32 am
Ray-I noticed that there are also 2 handles provided, you would think to hold onto. You failed to mention this and he may have not used them. I would tend to think that the training never said to hold on with one hand while holding on to something else with the other.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
So, Ray, I see your point. Let’s look a little harder at your posting.
point #1 the platform was added, but the employer also posted warnings, trained and delivered information to the employees on this danger.
Point #2 just because the employer modified their equipment does not constitute neglegence or imply guilt.
Point#3 if the employer has done adequate training and warnings the driver should not have to have roll call or walk to the back of the truck to ensure nobody is back there. What is to say the driver did or didn’t check and the employee jumped on after the driver got back in the truck?
Point#4 I agree the judge has the duty and responsibility to determine who if anyone is responsible, but BASED ON WHAT THE JUDGE FINDS WILL DETERMINE IF COMPENSATION SHOULD BE AWARDED. COMPENSATION should not be automatic.
Can this interpreted as if some one is stabbed with a kitchen knife and dies then the family will be able to sue the knife company?
If that is the case baseball bat manufacturers, rifle & pistol manufacturers, parachute manufacturers and yes pill companies should be sued if there is one death.
As I have posted I do see your point, but there comes a time in everyones life either 18 or 21 depending on the subject where one has to become accountable for their own actions.
I would venture to say their is nothing in the company handbook or posted about urinating from the back of the truck. Does this make it ok? I hope you see my point, somewhere in here common sense has to kick in. It is unfortunat this person died, but had he not been doing what is posted we probably would not be having this discussion. While the fact remains that the employee is a victim of this terrible accident I do agree with the court, this does not constitute a payoff to the family.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
When we have to drive a vehicle to back up and we have limited visibility, we are required to assess the back area of our trucks, and or get a spotter if we are in a high pedestrian area. Simple how just having that in place could have averted this tradgedy.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Safety First:
You say that assessing the area you are backing into or having a spotter would have averted this tragedy.
Following company policy of not being on the step (reguardless of action while on the step) while the truck is backing would have prevented any of this discussion. He wouldn’t have fallen, becoming stunned (I’m assuming) and allowing himself to be run over in the first place. Companies have policies for a reason. Yes, I understand it is CYA for them and wether or not they enforce them is somewhat beside the point (big brother always watching you isn’t the right answer either).
At some point in time I have to decide for myself, is what I’m doing safe or at least the safest way possible? Personnally I rely on myself first and foremost for my own safety. I like all my fingers and toes where they are.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
John,
Thanks for the smile!
RE:
# John Says:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:32 am
Ray-I noticed that there are also 2 handles provided, you would think to hold onto. You failed to mention this and he may have not used them. I would tend to think that the training never said to hold on with one hand while holding on to something else with the other.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:24 am
I would think the backup alarm or beeper was working, this is safety device mandated by law to address the problem of blind spots when a driver utilizes the vehicle side view mirrors. The beeping noise alerts anyone who may be behind the vehicle that it is moving. Whenever any commercial vehicle is backing some states reqiure that no truck is to back up at a work location without an individual spotting or directing the vehicle. This precaution is for the safety of the public as well as the workers. The driver is in control of this task, of having a spotter, in this case. The driver should not have moved the vehicle without the spotter. The spotter would have to be the worker who was killed while backing. If he were spotting the truck in a safe area where the driver was able to view his spotting signals. He would be alive. Field auditing and task observation of this and other tasks and proper retraining would further reduce the potential for this type of accident.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:22 am
DJBLC
“sone states” is the key here. The last half of you disertation assumes this was in one of those states. Reading the article would seem to indicate that this is not the case as no mention of this is made. There is also the judges ruling that the company nor it’s agents, (the driver) were at fault. I think that old saying about assumptions may be in order here.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
First, my sympathies and condolences go out to the family in their time of loss. I hope they can find some measure of peace.
Before I present my thoughts, I must admit upfront that I did not read all of the postings so some of you may have already discussed this, but “here goes.”
I don’t believe that we can’t simply say the Township was wrong for installing the platform because we don’t know all the details that went into the motivation and the decision to install the platform in the first place (for example, were they trying to eliminate some other hazard). Additionally, we don’t know about the design itself (for me, the picture is not sufficient).
But there is something we do know: by installing the platform the Township created a hazard with a foreseeable outcome as witnessed by the fact that the Township put up the signs and sent out the pamphlets to warn against this type of incident.
That said, I thoroughly agree with the court’s ruling: the family didn’t prove wrong doing (at least from what we could read in this short description of the case). The court also points out that LaPoint should have appreciated the hazard of standing on the platform since he was warned. (Let’s not forget that the law specifically states that employees must follow their employer’s safety program.)
I’m going to make an assumption here that the case was focusing more on Work Comp being the exclusive remedy. I think the family believed that Work Comp was exclusive remedy in this situation, and, therefore, they should have been paid death benefits. If I am correct in my assumption, some States have laws that reduce work comp benefits where employees are under the influence or fail to comply with written policies and procedures. Again, if this is the case, since the family failed to show “wrong doing,” and since the employee clearly violated company policy, the court made the right decision.
I do agree with Michelle David’s comments re: the use of technology, e.g., built in safety features such as a presence sensing mat, but I disagree with Michelle’s comment that the company was at fault because “they clearly were not enforcing their own rules.” We don’t know that.
I also agree with John I. that all companies have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace, because that is the law. I also agree that a company cannot create a hazard, as the Township did, and simply put up a sign and be relieved of their responsibility; they must, as Michelle suggests, enforce their own program. That’s why I believe this goes back to my assumption that this case is about reduced benefits when an employee fails to comply with company policy. (It would be interesting to see if OSHA cited the Township for failing to provide a safe work environment under the General Duty Clause).
In the end I do believe that the court made the correct decision; I also believe that employees must bear the responsibility to follow their employer’s policies (and the consequences of failing to comply).
February 8th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Where does it say the township added the step? Looks like a factory install to me. It also looks the same as 99% of all the other garbage trucks I have seen. Again the steps are in use daily by lots of pros out there and you do not hear of many issues regarding the steps. I believe the subject could be overworked by people trying to make equipment stupid-proof. It can be done but at what cost and where does the common sense come in?
February 8th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
OK, tell me what’s wrong with the CBS’ showing on national television premiere last night called UNDERCOVER BOSS about Larry O’Donnell, President & COO of Waste Management, the biggest waste handling company in this continent riding a truck just as this guy that had an accident was doing. I guess he can’t sue his own company if he gets run over because it shows that he is using what he provided for his employees to use “HANDLE BARS & STEP PLATFORMS” on the rear side of the garbage tuck.
See the part also that the female driver of the garbage truck DOES pee on a can while on the job, what do you think the guys do because of time constraints, so what if this guy was peeing maybe because ther is also a time contraint so it mauy have also copntributed to his death to ??????
See this show on CBS link and wath the part between 29 min & 32 min of the show and hold on your thought for a while as this is national TV at its truest form:
http://www.cbs.com/video/video.php?pid=eeih_jUDpC4RUe_O4m88dgi91p_wErmd
Go figure!
February 8th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
It is impossible to idiot proof a process or peice of equipment as idiots are so ingenious. Their minds work in ways that those of us with IQ’s above 50 can not comprehend. (They also come up with solutions to problem that we can not see for the same reason.) It takes all kinds. But we syill should not reward them for doing something that gets them killed via lack of forethought.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Mike J thanks for your reply. I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time. I would have a lot of fun working with someone as candid as you. Here is to keeping it real!
Thanks,
SK
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:42 pm
How very sad that a Father and Husband was lost. Some of the comments here are truly tastless. Now to the discussion: Should a DEATH BENIFIT been paid? YES! The man died while on the job period end of story. The argument that there is a waring sign is totally absurb. If that rule is the basis then as a Certified Safety Professional I better start looking for another field of work. We can hang a sign above every time clock in our orginizations; WARNING! HAZARDS EXIST IN THE JOB YOU ARE ABOUT TO START - BE CAREFUL OUT THERE. That should about cover everthing in those arguments that the worker was warned. As an investigator I would; 1. look at the fact that the man was using the restroom. Contrary to some comments on here, It Is VERY RELAVENT. 2. Investigate, was this normal operating procedures? If the answer is no; 3. Show me the policy for breaks and where facilities are provided for restroom breaks. This is a commercial truck and should have a log of all breaks taken. We all need to remember why we took on our roles as Safety Professionals. When we protect our workers we are improving the bottom line. Let us not get it backwards and put the focus on the bottom line at the cost of the worker.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Matt I saw the same show. I had tried to post my comments last month even before seeing the show but the system did not allow it on my end. The show you reference confirms what my belief was reagarding this ACCIDENT.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:18 am
The answer lies within whether this particular employee was properly trained, and whether he was properly monitored and held accountable for that training by supervision or management. Often times, we get stuck on signage, paperwork, compliance with regs, and “checking the box”, when at the real heart of the matter it is much more dynamic than those items. In all of these sensational cases, there is much information we are not afforded - from both sides. Each side is interested in winning, therefore, the truth is most of the time slanted toward the side to which the question is asked. It is my opinion, based upon what is written in the article this is not the first time this employee attempted to pee off of the side of the truck, he was warned, ignored the warnings, and unfortunately, the stars aligned and he was killed. Was there reasonable proof that monitoring was sufficient so that the employee understood he was accountable? I would assume that question was answered prior to the final verdict.
March 10th, 2010 at 12:13 am
Let’s review: I am killed attempting to take a leak into the bin of a moving garbage truck. I think you would be hard pressed to find the correct/safe way to do this on page 12 of the company Orientation manual. It seems everyone missed the “leading indicator”. He could not have been holding on as directed while having to stretch his body in a way which would allow him to hit the bin from that angle on a standard garbage truck. He violated company policy, and probably several city ordinances by attempting this procedure.
Next, to the person who asked if the signs were in “multiple” languages, where did that come from?
The next person “do garbage men normally ride on the back of garbage trucks”- You need to get out more.
Doc
December 28th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I have heard the beep of the garbage truck at 7am. How disgusting that he could not wait to pee. As if the garbage doesn’t smell bad enough already. Darwinism at its best.