Another Flawed Article (EC&M)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Anyone catch the article under "Forensic Casebook" written by Michael S. Morse, Ph.D., University of San Diego in the May 2006 EC&M?

The entire argument is flawed at best if not completely inaccurate. The case involves an electrician that was severely shocked after coming in contact with an electrical cabinet. However, both the actions of the electrician and the investigation results of the writer are in my opinion shows ignorance and possibly negligence.

First of all, the electrician made bad choices right from the start. First, has assumed everything would be safe because he had performed the same operation dozens of times. How many times have we heard this? Second, the electrician initially received a low-grade shock after contacting the enclosure and a car stop. The electrician used a "wiggy" and found a potential between the enclosure and the car stop post. This lead him to believe he simply need not touch the car stop as that was where the problem was! WHAT! To stop there and proceed with work was irresponsible. Until the real problem was located, he should not have continued. A few moments later, the electrician came in contact with a second car stop and the enclosure and received the severe shock.

The writer whom investigated the accident on behalf of the electrician felt it was "reasonable" for the electrician to assume the second pole was safe to touch even though the first one showed a potential to the electrical enclosure. This story is full of assumptions - poor ones.

As it turns out, one of the phase conductors and the grounded service conductor was reversed in the meter enclosure thus energizing the equipment. The writer goes on to blame an inadequate "ground" as a contributing factor. He claims the ground rod did not perform its intended job. This guy has no clue. We all know this is not the function of the GES.

Yet after all this the electrician received $3.3 million based on the investigation of the writer. In my honest opinion, I don't believe the writer really believes his own investigation or the manner in which the electrician handle the situation. He simply skewed the issue in favor of his interests.

So what?s worse? An ignorant person unknowingly making bad conclusions or a knowledgeable person intentionally misrepresenting the facts to prove a case?

I myself have submitted posts that I look back now and wonder what in the world I was thinking. We are all learning as we go. But this is an internet forum, not an international magazine.
 
Bryan
If he was an electrician, than it is not ignorance that led him to make such a poor decision. Ignorance means that he had no training and he made a mistake. If he is an ELECTRICIAN than he has had training and ignorance cannot be the case, now it becomes STUPIDITY.

The editors should have done a better job of editing this article, as it also puts them on the spot. I agree that the guy who got 3.3 million got away with highway robbery.

The problem with courts today is the "expert" witnesses that are used. It is too easy to call someone an expert witness today. I have myself been in court, and I will tell you the jury can easily be swayed by the "well spoken" individual, as they sound smart....
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I have have exchanged e-mails with the writer of the atricle. His area of expertise is the electrical injury. The other information was provided to him by other parties to the investigation. He was involved in the court case only to say that a 120 volt shock can, in some cases, have very serious long lasting effects that that these effects are not well understood or even recognized by people in the medical field or in the electrical industry.
Don
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
The problem with courts today is the "expert" witnesses that are used. It is too easy to call someone an expert witness today. I have myself been in court, and I will tell you the jury can easily be swayed by the "well spoken" individual, as they sound smart....
Especially when the lawyers tend to eliminate anyone with any smarts or technical training from the jury.
Don
 

steve66

Senior Member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
Engineer
don_resqcapt19 said:
Especially when the lawyers tend to eliminate anyone with any smarts or technical training from the jury.
Don


The same traits often seem to be missing from the judges and lawyers:)

Everything is about the exact language used to write each law, and how twisted you can interpert that law. Forget everything about the intent behind the laws, forget everything about common sense, forget eveything about the greater good, and forget everything about right and wrong. Then you could be a judge too.
 

fc

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19
Especially when the lawyers tend to eliminate anyone with any smarts or technical training from the jury.



Your so right----------- I was called to jury duty and the case was about a young boy from NJ on vacation out west at one of the big hotels. He died in the swimming pool caused by the pool light not being grounded.
When I was called up to the jury box and gave my name and occupation that was it they excused me. I guess they wanted no one knowing about electric on the jury.
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
If only we could select judges who would dispense justice as opposed to following the letter of the law. If only we could have jurists who would use common sense instead of pity, ignorance or stupidity.

If only we could only have qualified electricians doing electrical work.

If only we could only have qualified doctors practicing medicine.

The list goes on and on.

By qualified I mean ones who are ethical and care about people and know their area of expertise and work according to it. :(
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Where are the editors in all this? Hundreds if not thousands of people will read this article over the next couple of weeks, and then it will be archived on the internet for viewing forever. When I read an article in a reputable magazine, I am hoping to get some reliable information that I can use to make informed decisions.

One or two minor errors cane be expected, but the whole article is flawed right from the start to the end. No offense to the writer whom I am sure is a very professional and educated man.
 

allenwayne

Senior Member
Not sure of how it`s done where this happened but our poco first checks for this problem before energizing the service,if found a big red sticker is attached and not energized until corrected.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
allenwayne said:
Not sure of how it`s done where this happened but our poco first checks for this problem before energizing the service,if found a big red sticker is attached and not energized until corrected.


Same here. It has happened on more than one occasion where the conductors got crossed in the riser or service mast and was missed by the inspector. However, this was caught by FPL before they energized the service.

There are too many holes in the story in this article. I wonder if we are actually getting the whole story.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
It appears to me that the wrong connection was made by the utility. They apparently made the connections and then energized the primary without any additional checking. I do agree that the injured party should have done some additional investigation after he first felt the shock. However, he could have recieved the same injury by just going up to the pedestal and trying to open the door. No one would expect that the case of electrical equipment would be hot and I doubt if very many of us check for voltage between the earth and equipment enclosures before we try to open them. The article does say that the victim was partialy at fault and I expect that the settlement ws reduced based on this.
My issue with the author was the grounding part of the story that said if the grounding electrode would have been better the accident would not have happened. I convinced him otherwise (after a few e-mails) and he told me that he was only repeating what the "electrical experts" who investigated the incident told him.
Don
 

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
Pierre C Belarge said:
Bryan
If he was an electrician, than it is not ignorance that led him to make such a poor decision. Ignorance means that he had no training and he made a mistake. If he is an ELECTRICIAN than he has had training and ignorance cannot be the case, now it becomes STUPIDITY.

The editors should have done a better job of editing this article, as it also puts them on the spot. I agree that the guy who got 3.3 million got away with highway robbery.

The problem with courts today is the "expert" witnesses that are used. It is too easy to call someone an expert witness today. I have myself been in court, and I will tell you the jury can easily be swayed by the "well spoken" individual, as they sound smart....

I could not agree more. These are some of the best words I have heard.
 

tonyi

Senior Member
Several years ago I gave a videotaped deposition as an expert witness in one of Microsoft's many and varied lawsuits. Once the $$$ start to get big, reality takes a vacation and its Alice in Wonderland time.

MS settled that one for like $100M+ (paid to Caldera). I asked the MS lead attorney why they settled -- MS's defense was solid and my testimony was definitive in their favor. I didn't matter he said - MS just wanted the hassle gone and it was worth $100M+ to them eventually to just make it go away fast.

At least I got free lunch at the Breakers in Palm Beach, and a paid hotel in NYC during the deposition ;->
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
fc said:
don_resqcapt19 said:
Especially when the lawyers tend to eliminate anyone with any smarts or technical training from the jury.
Your so right----------- I was called to jury duty and the case was about a young boy from NJ on vacation out west at one of the big hotels. He died in the swimming pool caused by the pool light not being grounded.
When I was called up to the jury box and gave my name and occupation that was it they excused me. I guess they wanted no one knowing about electric on the jury.
Far be it from me to play devil's advocate (yeah, right), but this makes sense, in a way.

Look at this from another perspective, fc. Imagine that you were the expert witness, and there was a electrician in the jury who was persuasive and dead wrong about some key element of the case. Wouldn't you want to tie him to a stump, smear him with honey and leave him for the ants if he convinced the jury that, say, a ground rod is the only acceptable ground fault path, despite your expert (and correct) testimony?
 

macmikeman

Senior Member
This is not me taking any potshot at any particular author of a series of articles called " Forsenic Case Files" at a popular electrical trade magazine, but over the years I have read some real dozzy's in that particular feature. I am alway's amused at the " stand aside' the experts are here to lead the way now style of those articles. My favorite one was the issue that had the story about how the Forsenic Engineers solved a large facility's noise on equipment ground system, by locating and securing one loose #12 equipment ground that was in one of the many many panels located at the facility. (NOT).
 

fc

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
georgestolz said:
Far be it from me to play devil's advocate (yeah, right), but this makes sense, in a way.

Look at this from another perspective, fc. Imagine that you were the expert witness, and there was a electrician in the jury who was persuasive and dead wrong about some key element of the case. Wouldn't you want to tie him to a stump, smear him with honey and leave him for the ants if he convinced the jury that, say, a ground rod is the only acceptable ground fault path, despite your expert (and correct) testimony?


I guess I would have to agree with that.
Maybe I was just mad cause I could of helped the jury decide if the BS was flying with the expert witness and who was telling the truth.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
I just got the magazine today, and read the article.

One key aspect that caught my attention (aside from the author's repeated assertion a better earthing connection would have done something productive) is the following excerpt:

Two major issues were challenged by the defense. First, it argued that the shock could not have occurred as the plaintiff testified, asserting that the plaintiff could not have gotten his hand locked behind the latch on the pedestal. Second, it maintained that the victim's symptoms were extreme - if not ridiculous - for a mere 120V contact.

If these were the two major foci of the case, then the "lack of sufficient grounding" may well have been a back-burner, or non-issue in the litigation. If one side or the other didn't force the issue into the light, it could very well be it was mentioned in passing, and had no bearing on the outcome or award in the case. If this is true, then the fool - err, I mean plaintiff - in this matter did not skate with 3.3 million dollars based on the "lack" of grounding.

The utility screwed up, installing an ungrounded conductor to the case of the service. If the electrician died from the initial contact, the utility should have paid. But given the second chance the guy got, and totally blew it, I'd say that his own lack of training, sense, or whatever is solely to blame for his condition. He should not have won a dime, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top