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.
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.