The Engine Room Electrocution

[iwire]

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.

All too often, I hear electrical workers say that adhering to the Code is all that's required to avoid negligence in electrical system design. The reality is that stopping at mere adherence to applicable codes can, in some circumstances, be the first motion in a race to the courthouse steps.

So we know his view point right away.

The accident​

On the day of the incident, the vessel owner was working in the engine compartment, using a metal fish tape to route a wire from the engine compartment through a conduit into the vessel's main power supply box. The box was energized (shore power connected), presumably to provide necessary lighting in the rather cramped, dark and dank space of the engine compartment. At some point, the fish tape contacted the energized 120V bus in the vessel's power box, conducting current from the bus to the victim, who was later found dead in the engine compartment.

Say what??? This boat owner did something incredibly stupid and the EC or the Marina may be found at fault???

The verdict

As with so many of these types of accidents, this case settled for an undisclosed amount long before it could be argued in court. Perhaps the defendant saw how great damages for a loss could be, and the plaintiff recognized the uncertainty of predicting a win.

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?

In my expert opinion, it should have been absolutely foreseeable to the marina management that people with lay-knowledge of electricity would be working in the electrically risky environments of their boats without disconnecting the shore power. Furthermore, 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, pressure washers, buffers, and the like. Of course, the marina has knowledge of this practice. The common use of such adapters, which make shore power outlets usable as outlets for other purposes, would render all shore power outlets in the category of outlets requiring GFCI protection under the Code.

So there you have it, the Marina was at fault.

 

[acrwc10]

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.

NO, they mitigated there damages by settling out of court.
I read that article when it came out and there are a few holes in it, to the point I contacted the author. One is that many old boats have old generators that don't use floating neutrals, therefor would trip a GFI on shore power that is supplied at 120/240. This is why it is not required to be GFI protected by the NEC.

 

[iwire]

NO, they mitigated there damages by settling out of court.

I fully understand that.

What I was pointing out is that in that expert witnesses opinion the marina was at least partially at fault for not protecting the boat owner from himself.

To this equates with the Marina being responsibly to stop the boat owner from pushing off into a storm.

One is that many old boats have old generators that don't use floating neutrals, therefor would trip a GFI on shore power that is supplied at 120/240. This is why it is not required to be GFI protected by the NEC.

Do you know this to be a fact or just what you feel?

In general the NEC seems to stay away from feeder GFCI protection.

 

[al hildenbrand]

In my expert opinion, it should have been absolutely foreseeable to the marina management that people with lay-knowledge of electricity would be working in the electrically risky environments of their boats without disconnecting the shore power.

:roll:
The turn of the phrase of a passage of law, with the language of subsequent rulings, results in some strange grounds for determining what is "actionable" under law.

I can just imagine that a printed notice to the effect: "Don't use shore power for anything but its intended purpose." That such a printed notice, if placed somewhere on the marina, by the marina administration, would have been adequate "due diligence".

And, as in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", the notice could have been placed on a stand and set in the middle of the mop room off the back of the storage room behind the marina office, and such placement would have met the requirements of the law, and indemnified the marina.:roll:

 

[growler]

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.
Say what??? This boat owner did something incredibly stupid and the EC or the Marina may be found at fault???

But honestly is the layperson jury going to listen to 'Joe of Joe's electric' or the expert professor?

I quess you could say this is the problem of having "paid experts" giving opinions in a court case but it is allowed.

This is also why legal actions are so expensive because the only counter measure is to find an even more impressive egg head to counter the statements made by this guy. I'm sure the defense will have their own experts ( at great expense ).

Just remember folks that your fate in court will be determinedd by 12 people that were to dumb to get out of jury duty.

 

[ptonsparky]

So now we must protect all against their own stupidity. That's going to be a chore.

 

[acrwc10]

I fully understand that.

What I was pointing out is that in that expert witnesses opinion the marina was at least partially at fault for not protecting the boat owner from himself.

To this equates with the Marina being responsibly to stop the boat owner from pushing off into a storm.





Do you know this to be a fact or just what you feel?
In general the NEC seems to stay away from feeder GFCI protection.

The part about boat generators I know to be fact, the NEC part is my personal oppinion.
What really bugged me in this article was the "expert" is very knowledgeable but did not do his job, by getting other points of view, before he started placing blame. (one great thing about MH forum, lots of points of view :grin: ) This is what is called "the hazards of litigation", you never know if the jury is intelligent or Sheep.

 

[growler]

Folks even in the good old days when it was possible to petition the king to allow "trial by combat" it still came down to the man with the most money winning. The rules stated that each combatant was allowed a champion to fight in his place ( we have lawyers). So it was still a matter of how much you could or would be prepared to spend on your defense.

This is why it's so important to have good insurance. The insurance companies have a whole army of the best and most experienced lawyers that money can buy.

 

[iwire]

The part about boat generators I know to be fact, the NEC part is my personal oppinion.

Cool.

What really bugged me in this article was the "expert" is very knowledgeable but did not do his job, by getting other points of view, before he started placing blame.

Getting other points of view was not really his job.


My point in this thread is this. Regardless of how we feel, no mater how many of our fellow tradespeople agree, it means nothing because those are not who we will face in court.

 

[growler]

But honestly is the layperson jury going to listen to 'Joe of Joe's electric' or the expert professor?

Another point here. If you are willing to pay Joe of Joe's Electric enough money he will actually agree with this expert because that's how the system works.

Instead of hiring a bunch of electricians to give differing opinions they just brought out the big guns ( highly paid experts ).

 

[iwire]

Another point here. If you are willing to pay Joe of Joe's Electric enough money he will actually agree with this expert because that's how the system works.

Instead of hiring a bunch of electricians to give differing opinions they just brought out the big guns ( highly paid experts ).

Yes and in the case above what is Joe's expert going to say?

'GFCIs are not required by the NEC'

 

[growler]

:roll:

I can just imagine that a printed notice to the effect: "Don't use shore power for anything but its intended purpose." That such a printed notice, if placed somewhere on the marina, by the marina administration, would have been adequate "due diligence".

Yes and in the case above what is Joe's expert going to say?

'GFCIs are not required by the NEC'

Bob just obeying the law has never ment immunty from civil liability. Obeying the law hopefully will protect a person from criminal charges but in the world of cival law anything is possible.

I think that Al Hildenbrand has best hit on what the plaintiff's lawyer is going for. The possibility of a lack of due diligence on the part of the marina.

Now what could could the electrician actually say as an expert witness? He could honestly say that it's very common for the owners to work on their own boats and use unsafe work practices. He could also say that in his opinion that the marina is aware of that practice. He could even state that in his opinion that even though not require by code given the circumstances that GFCI protection would be considered a necessary safety measure ( design issue ). The NEC being a set of minimum standards and not always sufficient for every situation.

 

[acrwc10]

Cool.



Getting other points of view was not really his job.

My point in this thread is this. Regardless of how we feel, no mater how many of our fellow tradespeople agree, it means nothing because those are not who we will face in court.

I didn't mean that in the sense of he needed to take them into the court room. What I meant was, he needed to have others perspective not just his own, co-workers of his, boat mechanics, electrician, whatever. I don't care how smart he thinks he is, someone died and that should have motivated him to have more then just his own eyes looking at the probelm. Even if he dismissed their input later. When the police investigate a death they don't just have one person investigate it, they have several.

 

[iwire]

Bob just obeying the law has never ment immunty from civil liability.

All right, I am sorry I tried to bring this up. :roll:

I thought it might be helpful to some, I can see I was clearly mistaken.

 

[acrwc10]

I disagree, I think it all depends on the jury. The problem is "who sits on a jury" people not smart enough to get off of jury duty.

 

[growler]

All right, I am sorry I tried to bring this up. :roll:

I thought it might be helpful to some, I can see I was clearly mistaken.

Sorry to have upset you, I'm sure the article will be very informative and helpful to many people.

 

[USMC1302]

Bob:
I read that article too. I like the failure analysis stuff, and while tragic, this one IMO is another example of how litigious we have become. No one is ever responsible for his/her own actions, always someone to blame. By comparison, how would it be viewed if a homeowner decided to run the metal fish tape through a conduit toward his panel, and contacted the main? Would the POCO be at fault?

 

[chris kennedy]

this one IMO is another example of how litigious we have become. No one is ever responsible for his/her own actions, always someone to blame.

Well said, and Bob should not apologize for starting this thread, very pertinent to today's industry.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

All right, I am sorry I tried to bring this up. :roll:

I thought it might be helpful to some, I can see I was clearly mistaken.

Was good that you created this post. Makes a few think to cover there self as much as they can. Being right just might not save them. Never try to out think a jury that knows very little.

 

[Rockyd]

Thanks for the thread! Even if controversial, we have to deal with a lot of unforeseen situations, and what is written in our insurance policies to protect our industry from nefarious "expert lawyers" who know next to nothing about our business. Again, thanks Bob, we need to pay attention in dangerous waters!