Being a professor of electrical engineering, in, and of itself, maybe impressive, but normally has very little to do with electrical construction. It becomes a battle of dollars in a court room, where perception is everything, and a clever lawyer may not want the truth to have any influence on the outcome - where reality may have stood a chance.
The Engine Room Electrocution
- Thread starter iwire
- Start date
- Status
Using this argument, if I'm driving down the road going the speed limit, and a jogger jumps out in front of me, its my fault, because it was a foreseeable risk. I should have forseen the possibility of someone walking out in front of my car, and therefore I should of walked to work instead. :-?
I wonder if our expert has a grudge against marinas or boatdocks??
It also sounds like our expert is a DIY'er.
No wonder he is willing to side with someone who didn't hire a professional, and someone who was willing to put a metal fishtape inside a live panelboard while surrounded by grounded metal.
Two things our expert didn't mention, the boatowner could have easily ran an extension cord with the commonly used shore power adapter, and still had lights. He also didn't mention that a feeder GFCI could of been installed on the main inside the boat. Apparently the boat manufacturer didn't feel it was necessary.
shepelec
Senior Member
- Location
- Palmer, MA
This is the same mentality that blames the gun manufacturers for gun crimes.
No mater how hard you try you still can't fix stupid.
No mater how hard you try you still can't fix stupid.
weressl
Esteemed Member
I was reading EC&M the other day and have been meaning to post about it. The person ( a researcher, consultant, and full professor of electrical engineering) that wrote the following in the June 2010 EC&M is the kind of person you would have to defend yourself in court if something goes wrong with your work ...... or even if nothing is wrong with your work.
Just food for thought.
The entire article can be read here, The Case of the Engine Room Electrocution
Here are some portions.
So we know his view point right away.
Say what??? This boat owner did something incredibly stupid and the EC or the Marina may be found at fault???
So we don't know how it would have turned out.
But honestly is the layperson jury going to listen to 'Joe of Joe's electric' or the expert professor?
So there you have it, the Marina was at fault.
From the article: " Although I do not consider myself a Code expert, a review of the NEC seemed to clearly indicate that the circuit to which the boat was connected required only a proper breaker and was specifically excluded from the need for a ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). "
So if the litigants have any beef, that would be with the NEC itself. Our so-called expert misses some technical details as well as practical and legal, despite of claiming personal experience in maintaining electrical systems on his own vessel, yet claiming NO professional qualifications to do so. Is he a licensed - if such thing exist - shipboard electrician?
In wet environments GFCI's are notoriously causing nuisance trips as the wet environment provides such a high leakage current through the increased coupling capacitance that exceeds their threshold limit WITHOUT presenting danger to the operators, hence they are not practical means of protection.
The NEC STOPS at the shore. Vessels electrical systems fall under other authority. The electrocution occurred on the vessel and during the course of work that is regulated - or should be - by the same authority. By the same argument the Utility company could be held liable for an electrocution occurring on the serviced premises.
But the rule is; if somebody dies, somebody has to pay for it. So to avoid the bad publicity and loosing customers the Marina - or rather the Insurance Company - paid. Yet there is no remedy provided for the public at large as nothing improved as the result, no laws or Code were changed. That IS the real travesty and the Lawyers just love it.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Bob, you need to post a disclaimer before linking to stories like this. My head almost exploded, man.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Remember there is no legal precedence here.
This is simply a self-serving magazine article. and the author was hired by the claimant.
The fact the defendant decided to settle out of court means very little, as we do not how what they 'settled' on. It is possible every one went home with nothing.
This is simply a self-serving magazine article. and the author was hired by the claimant.
The fact the defendant decided to settle out of court means very little, as we do not how what they 'settled' on. It is possible every one went home with nothing.
It is my understanding, after corresponding with the author of the article, that money was paid out and the marina was just cutting their exposure to a known amount rather then risk litigation. I feel, once you step in the court room you have already lost.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
If the victim were an employee instead of the owner, then there would be OSHA electrical workplace violations involved, obviously this means there were dangerous practices happening. Victim was ignorant to safe practices.
big john
Senior Member
- Location
- Portland, ME
Some of these really shady forensic analysis columns are actually one of the reasons I let my EC&M subscription lapse. I love the argument that the marina should have seen this coming because "...it's common practice at marinas for dock workers to use inexpensive adapters to convert 30A shore power outlets into standard 15A, 120V outlets to operate power tools...." Nevermind that had nothing to do with this fatality. The victim didn't die while using a non-GFCI protected tool; he died because he was playing in an energized electrical system while surrounded by damp metal! At what point is someone's stupidity their own responsibility?
Here's another really fantastic verdict from EC&M: The Case of the Misleading Meter
So, we have an electrician who apparently:
- Isn't wearing any arc flash PPE.
- Doesn't understand the gear he's working on.
- Doesn't understand how to use his test equipment.
- Ignores the readings his equipment gives him.
- Fails to perform a live-dead-live test.
- Then makes an intentional ground in an energized 4160 volt cubicle.
He pretty much fit the very definition of "Unqualified Personnel" but somehow his death is the fault of the people who manufactured the electrical tester. Say what?! It makes me sick.
-John
Here's another really fantastic verdict from EC&M: The Case of the Misleading Meter
So, we have an electrician who apparently:
- Isn't wearing any arc flash PPE.
- Doesn't understand the gear he's working on.
- Doesn't understand how to use his test equipment.
- Ignores the readings his equipment gives him.
- Fails to perform a live-dead-live test.
- Then makes an intentional ground in an energized 4160 volt cubicle.
He pretty much fit the very definition of "Unqualified Personnel" but somehow his death is the fault of the people who manufactured the electrical tester. Say what?! It makes me sick.
-John
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
I also find the results of this disturbing, as it opens the reasons we can be sued for to just about anything, take a look at this case of the Coke A Cola trailer, yes there was a bondafide problem with the hookup of the trailer, but it wasn't the real reason the court found against Coke, the final determination was they said a ground rod would have prevented the shock hazard.:roll:
I have lost much faith in our court system because of these type of cases, it no longer seems that truth is the adjective.
Read about the Coke case HERE
And the discussion of it HERE about 6 pages in
I have lost much faith in our court system because of these type of cases, it no longer seems that truth is the adjective.
Read about the Coke case HERE
And the discussion of it HERE about 6 pages in
Last edited:
weressl
Esteemed Member
With a gun: you can!:grin:
weressl
Esteemed Member
The victim was performing unlicensed work. (Although I do not know what licensing the AHJ on BOATS would require, but if it would've occurred on land, it would be such.)
ptonsparky
Tom
- Occupation
- EC - retired
Electricity works just as well.
shepelec
Senior Member
- Location
- Palmer, MA
It did in this case.:grin::grin:
...Just remember folks that your fate in court will be determinedd by 12 people that were to dumb to get out of jury duty.
I disagree. The problem are all the smart people that wriggle out of jury duty. I fight to get on to juries when I'm called. On my last case I was the only smart guy on the jury and no one agreed with me walking into the deliberation room. But they all agreed with me walking out.
The worst three of the other eleven were:
Moron #1) Murder-Guilty; Possession of a gun-Maybe
Moron #2) Murder-Maybe; Possession of a gun-No way!
Moron #3) "I think he's innocent but if you all want to convict him I just want to get home."
Yes, the victim was shot. Three times.
If you're really smart, then you'll stop dodging jury duty and encourage other smart people to attend.
jaylectricity
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Occupation
- licensed journeyman electrician
Where's Marisa Tomei when you need her?
- Location
- Massachusetts
:roll:
Maybe they said the heck with justice so they could get away from the guy who thinks he is so smart.
- Status