Explosions & Fires « Ken Allen Law Blog

Archive for the ‘Explosions & Fires’ Category

Good Samaritan Laws in Illinois and Indiana: Do You Risk a Lawsuit If You Stop to Help Someone at the Scene of an Accident?

April 28th, 2011 by admin

You’re driving home from work, or maybe it’s the end of a long weekend and you’re part of a parade of cars filled with families returning home. Or maybe you’re at work. In a mine, in a mill, on a train, or in a factory. You could even be at school, or at the stadium for a game.

Suddenly, without warning: there’s an accident. A serious, scary accident where someone is seriously hurt. They’re in need – and if someone doesn’t help them, they may die.

This scenario becomes reality every day, in every state, in this country. Tragedies happen. Shockingly, however, not every state protects its citizens in the same way when they step up to render aid in an emergency. In fact, without Good Samaritan Laws in place, these do-gooders were sometimes later sued (yes, sued) for trying to help in a crisis.

For example, this winter in Fort Wayne, Indiana, there was a horrific car crash and an off-duty state trooper stopped to help the woman trapped inside her car. It was only when a stranger, an ordinary citizen and good guy, stopped to help the trooper that they were able to set the woman free.

Illinois Good Samaritan Law

In 2011, the Illinois Good Samaritan Act was amended to clarify that the Illinois General Assembly’s purpose in passing the law was to ” …establish numerous protections for the generous and compassionate acts of its citizens who volunteer their time and talents to help others. These protections …shall be liberally construed to encourage persons to volunteer their time and talents.”

The overall Good Samaritan Law for Illinois is found in 210 ILCS 50, where it provides:

Sec. 3.150. Immunity from civil liability.

(a) Any person, agency or governmental body certified, licensed or authorized pursuant to this Act or rules thereunder, who in good faith provides emergency or non‑emergency medical services during a Department approved training course, in the normal course of conducting their duties, or in an emergency, shall not be civilly liable as a result of their acts or omissions in providing such services unless such acts or omissions, including the bypassing of nearby hospitals or medical facilities in accordance with the protocols developed pursuant to this Act, constitute willful and wanton misconduct.
(b) No person, including any private or governmental organization or institution that administers, sponsors, authorizes, supports, finances, educates or supervises the functions of emergency medical services personnel certified, licensed or authorized pursuant to this Act, including persons participating in a Department approved training program, shall be liable for any civil damages for any act or omission in connection with administration, sponsorship, authorization, support, finance, education or supervision of such emergency medical services personnel, where the act or omission occurs in connection with activities within the scope of this Act, unless the act or omission was the result of willful and wanton misconduct.
(c) Exemption from civil liability for emergency care is as provided in the Good Samaritan Act.
(d) No local agency, entity of State or local government, or other public or private organization, nor any officer, director, trustee, employee, consultant or agent of any such entity, which sponsors, authorizes, supports, finances, or supervises the training of persons in the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillators, or first aid in a course which complies with generally recognized standards shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on the training of such persons unless an act or omission during the course of instruction constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(e) No person who is certified to teach the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillators, or first aid and who teaches a course of instruction which complies with generally recognized standards for the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillators, or first aid shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on the acts or omissions of a person who received such instruction, unless an act or omission during the course of such instruction constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(f) No member or alternate of the State Emergency Medical Services Disciplinary Review Board or a local System review board who in good faith exercises his responsibilities under this Act shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on such activities unless an act or omission during the course of such activities constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(g) No EMS Medical Director who in good faith exercises his responsibilities under this Act shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on such activities unless an act or omission during the course of such activities constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(h) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create a cause of action or any civil liabilities.

Indiana Good Samaritan Law

Indiana’s Good Samaritan Law is not the same as that of Illinois. Indiana focuses upon protecting emergency medical professionals, whether they are licensed in Indiana or elsewhere, as they do their work at the scene of an emergency.

Indiana’s Good Samaritan Law is found at IC 16-31-6-1, where it provides:

IC 16-31-6
Chapter 6. Immunity From Liability

IC 16-31-6-1
Emergency medical technician services
Sec. 1. (a) A certified emergency medical technician or a certified emergency medical technician-basic advanced who provides emergency medical services to an emergency patient is not liable for an act or omission in providing those services unless the act or omission constitutes negligence or willful misconduct. If the emergency medical technician or emergency medical technician-basic advanced is not liable for an act or omission, no other person incurs liability by reason of an agency relationship with the emergency medical technician or emergency medical technician-basic advanced.
(b) This section does not affect the liability of a driver of an ambulance for negligent operation of the ambulance.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.14. Amended by P.L.205-2003, SEC.33.

IC 16-31-6-2
Use of defibrillators
Sec. 2. (a) Except for an act of negligence or willful misconduct, a certified first responder who uses an automatic or semiautomatic defibrillator on an emergency patient according to the training procedures established by the commission under IC 16-31-2-9 is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions when rendering those services.
(b) If the first responder is immune from civil liability for the first responder’s act or omission, a person who has only an agency relationship with the first responder is also immune from civil liability for the act or omission.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.14.

IC 16-31-6-3
Advanced life support
Sec. 3. An act or omission of a paramedic or an emergency medical technician-intermediate done or omitted in good faith while providing advanced life support to a patient or trauma victim does not impose liability upon the paramedic or emergency medical technician-intermediate, the authorizing physician, the hospital, or the officers, members of the staff, nurses, or other employees of the hospital or the local governmental unit if the advanced life support is provided:
(1) in connection with an emergency;
(2) in good faith; and
(3) under the written or oral direction of a licensed physician;
unless the act or omission was a result of negligence or willful misconduct.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.14. Amended by P.L.205-2003,

SEC.34.

IC 16-31-6-4
Life support provided in connection with disaster emergency
Sec. 4. (a) This section does not apply to an act or omission that was a result of gross negligence or willful or intentional misconduct.
(b) An act or omission of a paramedic, an emergency medical technician-intermediate, an emergency medical technician-basic advanced, an emergency medical technician, or a person with equivalent certification from another state that is performed or made while providing advanced life support or basic life support to a patient or trauma victim does not impose liability upon the paramedic, the emergency medical technician-intermediate, the emergency medical technician-basic advanced, an emergency medical technician, the person with equivalent certification from another state, a hospital, a provider organization, a governmental entity, or an employee or other staff of a hospital, provider organization, or governmental entity if the advanced life support or basic life support is provided in good faith:
(1) in connection with a disaster emergency declared by the governor under IC 10-14-3-12 in response to an act that the governor in good faith believes to be an act of terrorism (as defined in IC 35-41-1-26.5); and
(2) in accordance with the rules adopted by the Indiana emergency medical services commission or the disaster emergency declaration of the governor.

Posted in Airplane & Train Crashes, Auto Accidents, Bus Crashes, Construction Injuries, Electrocution, Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Falls, Insurance Claims, Job Site Injury, Longshoremen & Maritime, Medical Malpractice, Mill Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Railroad Workers (FELA), School & Playground Injuries, Semi-Truck Crashes, Serious Personal Injury, Slip & Falls, Spinal Injuries, Sports & Boating Accidents, Transportation, Work Related, Workers’ Compensation | No Comments »

Fires Hurt and Kill Locals This Week: Household Fire Dangers Come From Everyday Items

April 5th, 2011 by admin

Over the weekend, an elderly man perished in a fire reported to have been caused by electrical appliance in his home. Mr. Wilson Jones, 91 years old, went to bed on Saturday night in his home in Gary, Indiana, and a fire from an electrical appliance (what kind has not been reported yet) released enough smoke that Mr. Jones died of smoke inhalation.

In another fire, a Chicago firefighter was injured in a home fire along with a resident this morning, the resident reported to be in serious condition at Loretto Hospital, when a fire broke out in a building that houses a storefront on the ground floor with apartments up above. The fire raged for most of this morning, and its cause has yet to be released to the public.

On the job fires are a common problem in our local area: mill workers, longshoremen, factory workers, those working on the railroads and in construction, are all vulnerable to fire injuries as part of their daily work. These men and women bravely do their jobs, day in and day out, all too aware of that risk of chemical fires, electrical fires, explosions, and the like.

Fire injuries on the job are real tragedies. However, even more horrific are fire injuries and deaths that arise in someone’s home.

We are supposed to be safe in our homes, particularly in the dead of night when we are sleeping. However, defective products and things like faulty electrical wiring are all too often the cause of serious injury and death in our country. The National Fire Prevention Association provides details on the most common causes of fires in the home (click on the link for a NFPA Fact Sheet):

When a loved one is seriously injured or killed in their home because of a fire, the horror that the family and friends feel can be overwhelming. There is something especially horrible when a human being dies in a fire. It is almost unbearable to deal with this reality when the origin of the fire is revealed to be the result of a flaw in wiring or a defect in a product.

There are few instances when a personal injury lawsuit can have more longreaching results than when a brave family member fights in the courtroom for justice in a products liability or personal injury lawsuit designed to stop fire injuries and wrongful deaths. No one should ever have to deal with this situation, and our condolences go out to all who have experienced a horrific loss and tragedy as a result of fire.

Posted in Defective Products, Explosions & Fires, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Work Related, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Fukushima 50 and the Underappreciated Bravery and Honor of the Mine and Mill Worker

March 17th, 2011 by admin

The Fukushima 50 are fifty workers who have volunteered to man their posts inside the Japanese nuclear reactors harmed in last week’s earthquake and tsunami, in an attempt to stop a possible nuclear event that could harm and kill thousands of innocent citizens. These workers have gone to work, knowing that they are risking their lives to do so.

The amount of radiation exposure that these workers are walking into there may kill them. They know this. They’re going to work anyway.

All Around the World, Eyes are on the Fukushima 50.

News media, twitter tweets, and blog posts (like this one) are all monitoring what is happening to these fifty brave souls. ABCNews reports on the daughter of one worker, who tweets as @nekkonekonyaa. She’s praying for her father – and you can follow her tweets here if you’d like (though she writes in Japanese, of course, and you’ll need to use an online translator like Google Translate).

We don’t know their names. The Japanese Government hasn’t released their identities.

We do know that the longer that the crisis continues, the more danger they face. Within the last hour of this post, Bloomberg reports that the Tokyo Electric Power Company isn’t vested in keeping the worldwide news organizations up to date with information on what’s going on inside these reactors. The Hindustan Times tells us that the efforts to cool things down with sea water may or may not be working — and that the workers are becoming increasingly at risk for harm.

Workers in Our Mills and Mines Understand This Situation Better Than Most

Here in our community, we have friends, family, neighbors, or colleagues that know this kind of life and death scenario all too well. Every day, working stiffs throughout Illinois and Indiana march into mills and mines knowing that they enter some of the most dangerous working conditions in America.

The American miner, in particular, knows the dedication that the Fukushima 50 are exemplifying. The miners that work to fill our energy needs here have faced, and are ready to face, cave-ins and exposures that may cost them their lives. And they, too, go to work every day with dignity, integrity, and honor.

We salute them, and we feel honored to have been chosen to represent them and their loved ones when the need arises.

And today, we also salute the Fukushima 50. May they be safe. May their families be comforted. May they come out of this alive.

Posted in Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Job Site Injury, Mill Accidents, Serious Personal Injury, Work Related | No Comments »

Peabody Expanding S. Illinois Gateway Mine – Will the Reminder of Chile’s 33 Rescued Miners Be Remembered?

October 14th, 2010 by admin

This week, the entire world watched as 33 miners were rescued from 2000+ feet below the ground — in fact, the Washington Post has compiled a nice timeline of the Chile miners’ recovery which is worth your time to read.

They had been trapped underground for 2 months, 9 days, and 8 hours in a collapsed mine shaft. Imagine. Just imagine.

We’ve Been Watching the Chile Mine Rescue – Along with People like the Pope and the President

The Pope has been monitoring the Chile mine disaster, referencing the ongoing rescue effort in his address from the Vatican on Wednesday, as almost a dozen men had been brought to the surface. Graceland has just invited one of the rescued miners for a visit (assumedly, miner Edison Pena is a big Elvis fan).

President Obama along with the Chilean President issued emotional statements to the press as the miracle of every man recovered and reunited with family was viewed, as it happened, on screens all over the world.

It was a wonderful thing – all these men being safely returned to their families after being trapped so far below ground for so long a time. For those who understand the inherent dangers of mining, this was an impressive feat.

Appreciation and Relief

Representing plaintiffs who have been seriously injured or killed in mining disasters, Ken Allen Law has a special appreciation for what has happened in Chile. It’s simply a wonderful thing, thrilling and at the same time, such a relief. It could have so easily gone the other way.

Which brings us to the recent news release by Peabody Energy Corporation that they will be expanding their coal mine in southern Illinois by 40% — that’s a big, big expansion of a mine, right?

Peabody explains the need to grab all the coal that’s lying underneath this Illinois soil (over 280 million tons) as part of a fight against oil dependency as well as providing jobs to the local community. Which sounds great.

It would be even better to hear about all the safety features that are being implemented as part of this expansion of the Gateway Mine in Southern Illinois. Moving fast doesn’t jive with moving carefully.

Mining is dangerous, dangerous business.

Let’s hope that in the current economic atmosphere, profits and jobs aren’t going to be deemed so important that protecting future miners working in that expanded mine takes a back seat. Let us all learn a lesson from the 33 miracle miners in Chile.

Posted in Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Job Site Injury, Mill Accidents, Serious Personal Injury, Work Related, Workers’ Compensation | No Comments »

The Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010 – Providing More Safety for Miners and Independent Investigation of Mining Accidents — May Never Become Law

August 11th, 2010 by admin

Right now, a statute has been proposed in the House of Representatives (H.R. 5663) that, if it becomes law, will change parts of both the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (FMSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA).

If it passes, the new law would make some mining companies implement new safety measures for the protection of their employees as they work in the mines, as well as forcing the companies to adhere to new standards regarding employee rights – including new protections for whistleblowers and mining accident victims.

Finally, the proposal as it is currently written makes it mandatory for there to be independent, third-party accident investigations for certain mine accidents.

Which all sounds good, right? Except that H.R. 5663 may never become reality. Right now, opposition is growing to its passage.

Follow it here:

Posted in Construction Injuries, Electrocution, Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Falls, Job Site Injury, Longshoremen & Maritime, Mill Accidents, Railroad Workers (FELA), Serious Personal Injury, Work Related, Workers’ Compensation, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Federal Appeals Court Finds Illinois Law Applies To Retaliatory Discharge Lawsuits, Placing Bigger Evidence Burden on Plaintiffs

August 5th, 2010 by admin

On July 15, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit released its opinion in Gacek v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 09-3131 (July 15, 2010) – and it’s big news for plaintiffs seeking justice from evildoing employers. The news isn’t good.

Illinois Retaliatory Discharge Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof

In the case, the Seventh Circuit considered Illinois workers suing for justice in federal court after being harmed for retaliatory discharge.

What is retaliatory discharge? In some jurisdictions, it’s known as “wrongful discharge” or “wrongful dismissal” and it happens when someone is fired without good cause as the employer retaliates against them – firing them in response to an action that the worker has taken. Whistleblowers, for example, risk retaliatory discharge by their employer.

In this month’s decision, all the 7th Circuit justices agreed, issuing a unanimous opinion written by Judge Posner which states that the legal standard in these lawsuits is not the federal standard used in federal court pursuant to McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, but instead the Illinois state law standard which requires a plaintiff to prove causation.

What’s the difference? Under the federal standard found in McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff only needs to show the employer’s reasons for firing the plaintiff were just pretext — unworthy of belief. That’s a lesser burden than having to prove causation.

Gacek and the Erie Doctrine

In the Gacek opinion, Judge Posner notes that in Clemons v. Mech. Devices Co., 704 N.E.2d 403, 407-08 (Ill. 1998), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the McDonnell Douglas standard because the state high court was “… unwilling to expand the tort of retaliatory discharge by reducing plaintiff’s burden of proving the elements of the tort.”

With this precedent in place, the opinion relied upon the longstanding Erie doctrine which requires the federal courts to apply state law in substantive issues that come before it. The 7th Circuit felt legally bound to adhere to the Illinois Supreme Court’s rationale in Clemons.

No word yet on whether or not the decision will be appealed.

U.S. Steel Workers Keep Working after Alarm Sounds – Gas Explodes, 20 Seriously Injured

July 27th, 2010 by admin

This week, as U.S. Steel is expected to announce its third quarter profits, many of its workers and their families are still reeling from the July 14, 2010, explosion at the US Steel Coke Works plant in Clairton, Pennsylvania.

U.S. Steel has reported a net loss for the past five quarters in a row. Having a profit this quarter is big news.

However, the juxtaposition of U.S. Steel’s profitability announcement and the Clairton coke gas explosion may tell another story: the steel company has been fighting for profits over the past few years, and one has to wonder how much worker safety has been put on the back burner in the corporation’s focus on getting in the black again.

Big Blast Happened Before Sunrise

This was a huge blast: news reports are that as Clairton maintenance crews worked at basement level, there was a gas explosion resulting in a fire that burned inside the B Battery section of the plant for hours following the blast.

Walls were literally destroyed; thick steel beams were bent by its force. It’s being called a miracle that anyone survived.

One Worker’s Eyewitness Account of What Happened – Loud Boom, Everything Went Black

Television station KDKA interviewed US Steel worker Brian Doyle as he was recuperating in Pittsburgh’s McKeesport Hospital, one of the 20 steel workers injured in the coke gas explosion.

Workers Continued to Make Repairs Despite Alarms Sounding

Doyle recalled that while his gas detector’s alarm was ringing, he and his crew remained where they were, trying to seal up a coke gas pipe. Gas levels were extremely high, and the gas exploded. Doyle remembers the explosion being so forceful that he was catapulted into the air.

Mr. Doyle’s own account of what happened that day is worth reading at KDKA’s site. Read his interview yourself, and ask: was this man being adequately protected from harm?

OSHA is investigating, as is the United Steelworkers Union.

Posted in Explosions & Fires, Mill Accidents, Work Related, Workers’ Compensation | No Comments »

Whistleblowers Given New Online Protection by OSHA

July 21st, 2010 by admin

Whistleblowers are employees and workers who “blow the whistle” on wrongdoing in the workplace: they are witnesses to all sorts of unlawful practices, but especially important are those who come forward about dangerous safety and health code violations. These men and women undertake great risk to speak up about wrongs being done.

Whistleblowers are vital to the safety of any workplace, but especially the dangerous work environments found in steel mills, auto manufacturing plants, construction sites, and the like. Whistleblowers can save lives – often at the risk of their own.

This month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) added online support to its whistleblower protection program, by creating a new whistleblower web site, www.whistleblowers.gov. According to OSHA, the new site is designed “…to provide workers, employers, and the public with easily accessible information about the 18 federal whistleblower protection statutes that OSHA currently administers.”

Whistleblowers.org – Information Hub for Workers Blowing the Whistle on Wrongdoing

At Whistleblowers.org, visitors can find current information regarding all the various statutes and agency regulations established under federal law to protect workers coming forward with evidence of employer wrongdoing (“whistleblower laws”). State laws are not covered by the new site.

According to the agency’s news release, “OSHA doesn’t work unless workers feel secure in exercising their rights,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels. “This Web page is part of OSHA’s promise to stand by those workers who have the courage to come forward when they know their employer is cutting corners on safety and health.”

The Federal Whistleblower Laws

Indiana, Illinois, and other states have their own set of laws protecting whistleblowers. However, the federal government has been proactive in protecting these workers and the following federal laws are in place to protect whistleblowers today (click here for links to the particular provision):

• Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. §660
• Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. §31105
• Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), 15 U.S.C. §2651
• International Safe Container Act (ISCA), 46 App U.S.C. §1506
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §300j-9(i)
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. §1367
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2622
• Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 U.S.C. §6971
• Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §7622
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9610
• Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §5851
• Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21), 49 U.S.C. §42121
• Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, Title VIII of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX), 18 U.S.C. §1514A
• Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA), 49 U.S.C. §60129
• Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. §20109
• National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA), 6 U.S.C. §1142
• Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), 15 U.S.C. §2087
• Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), P.L. 111-148
• 29 CFR Part 1977 – Discrimination Against Employees Exercising Rights under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act
• 29 CFR Part 1978 – Rules for Implementing Section 405 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
• 29 CFR Part 1979 – Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 519 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
• 29 CFR Part 1980 – Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002
• 29 CFR Part 1981 – Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 6 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
• 29 CFR Part 24 – Interim Final Rule, Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints under the Employee Protection Provisions of Six Federal Environmental Statutes and Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended

Here at Kenneth J. Allen & Associates Law Firm, we commend those who have the courage and integrity to risk their jobs and livelihoods, and even their physical safety, to come forward and speak the truth about dangers in the workplace. If there is any way that we can be of help, please feel free to call.

Posted in Construction Injuries, Electrocution, Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Falls, Job Site Injury, Longshoremen & Maritime, Mill Accidents, Railroad Workers (FELA), Work Related, Workers’ Compensation | No Comments »

Employers Not Fazed by Increased OSHA Fines

June 21st, 2010 by admin

On May 27, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its second fine over $1 million within the last month. The South Dakota Wheat Growers Association of Aberdeen, South Dakota was fined $1.6 million for 23 willful violations after the December 2009 death of a worker at one of the company’s grain handling operations. The worker suffocated to death after being engulfed by grain in one of the facility’s storage bins.

Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, spoke about the Department’s investigation and stated that “The S.D Wheat Growers Association ignored long-established standards addressing safety in grain handling operations.” Solis also stated that “The company’s intentional disregard for its safety…led to an unnecessary loss of a life.”

The company’s utter disregard for the safety of its employees is even more troubling given the fact that just last year Tempel Grain Company, one state over in Haswell, Colorado, was fined more than $1.5 million for 22 similar OSHA violations.

This came after a 17-year old employee of Tempel suffocated to death in a bin after being engulfed by grain.

This inexcusable ignorance to OSHA citations and fines can also be seen closer to home. Just last year, the Indiana Occupational Health and Safety Administration issued fines totaling more than $400,000 to two Indiana Companies for repeated workplace safety violations. Steel Dynamics, based in Fort Wayne, was cited and fined $240,000 when one employee was injured and another was killed by nitrogen fumes released by a furnace.

Many of the violations were repeat violations, meaning that they company had already been cited for the violation and was aware of the dangerous condition that existed. Similarly, Noblesville based company King Systems Corp., which manufactures anesthesia and respiratory care products, was cited for repeat violations and fined for $191,000.

The violations resulted from the company’s ongoing failure to minimize employee exposure to harmful gases.

At first blush, one might assume that increased fines have lead to a safer working environment. However, this is not always the case. All too often, these repeat violations and increased fines provide little deterrent to employers primarily concerned with the bottom line: profits. Rather than addressing the safety hazards and unsafe conditions, employers wait until one of its employees is seriously injured or killed, before taking the proper corrective measures prescribed by OSHA. Unfortunately, the tragic incidents described above demonstrate this all too well.

Posted in Construction Injuries, Defective Products, Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Falls, Job Site Injury, Mill Accidents, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Slip & Falls, Work Related, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Archive for the ‘Explosions & Fires’ Category

Categories

Links

Archives

Serious Personal Injury

Wrongful Death

Transportation

Work Related