Archive for the ‘Job Site Injury’ Category

« Older Entries

Feds Release Final Truck Driver Hours of Service (HOS) Rule: 11 Hour Limit and More Changes

December 29th, 2011 by admin

Truck Drivers will have to obey new laws on how long they drive and how long they have to rest between trips, which means the roads will be safer for all of us.

After so much discussion and so much challenge by various factions of the trucking industry, the final version of the “HOS Rule” has been issued by the federal government.  The official announcement came on December 22, 2011, by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. You can read the full text of the new HOS Rule online at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminstration (FMCSA) site where it is available as a .pdf download.

What does the new Final HOS Rule Do? Here are some highlights:

  1. The Final Rule has kept the 11-hour per day driving limit that truck drivers now have to follow (which means that those fighting to cut that number back to 10 or lower lost here).
  2. Who’s working?  “On duty time” under the New Rule means any time spent in the truck itself except for the sleeper. It does not include up to 2 hours in the passenger seat right before or right after an 8 hour break in the sleeper when the truck is on the road.  It does not include time resting in a parked truck.   Truckers are on duty while they are waiting to load or unload unless their employer has officially released them from being on the job for the load/unload.
  3. Truck drivers moving big rig semi tractor trailer commercial trucks on American roads are not going to have the same work week:  the new rule takes away 12 hours from the total that a truck driver can be on the road in one week’s time.  That’s a day and a half — a big difference to the trucker and the trucking industry.  Total hours a truck driver can work in one week is now 70 hours, down from 82.
  4. Restarts can be used once every 7 days; under the New Rule, the truck driver gets 2 or more nights of rest between 1 and 5 o’clock in the morning, both changes to the old  restart rule.
  5. Under the New Rule, commercial truck drivers have to stop and take a break of 30 minutes or more after driving for 8 hours on the road.  If the trucker thinks they need that 30 minute break before hitting that 8-hour mark, then they are free to take a break within that 8 hour block as well.

Official Announcement from the Department of Transportation:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced a final rule that employs the latest research in driver fatigue to make sure truck drivers can get the rest they need to operate safely when on the road. The new rule by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) revises the hours-of-service (HOS) safety requirements for commercial truck drivers.

“Trucking is a difficult job, and a big rig can be deadly when a driver is tired and overworked,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “This final rule will help prevent fatigue-related truck crashes and save lives. Truck drivers deserve a work environment that allows them to perform their jobs safely.”

As part of the HOS rulemaking process, FMCSA held six public listening sessions across the country and encouraged safety advocates, drivers, truck company owners, law enforcement and the public to share their input on HOS requirements. The listening sessions were live webcast on the FMCSA Web site, allowing a broad cross-section of individuals to participate in the development of this safety-critical rule.

“This final rule is the culmination of the most extensive and transparent public outreach effort in our agency’s history,” said FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro. “With robust input from all areas of the trucking community, coupled with the latest scientific research, we carefully crafted a rule acknowledging that when truckers are rested, alert and focused on safety, it makes our roadways safer.”

FMCSA’s new HOS final rule reduces by 12 hours the maximum number of hours a truck driver can work within a week. Under the old rule, truck drivers could work on average up to 82 hours within a seven-day period. The new HOS final rule limits a driver’s work week to 70 hours.

In addition, truck drivers cannot drive after working eight hours without first taking a break of at least 30 minutes. Drivers can take the 30-minute break whenever they need rest during the eight-hour window.

The final rule retains the current 11-hour daily driving limit. FMCSA will continue to conduct data analysis and research to further examine any risks associated with the 11 hours of driving time.

The rule requires truck drivers who maximize their weekly work hours to take at least two nights’ rest when their 24-hour body clock demands sleep the most – from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. This rest requirement is part of the rule’s “34-hour restart” provision that allows drivers to restart the clock on their work week by taking at least 34 consecutive hours off-duty. The final rule allows drivers to use the restart provision only once during a seven-day period.

Companies and drivers that commit egregious violations of the rule could face the maximum penalties for each offense. Trucking companies that allow drivers to exceed the 11-hour driving limit by 3 or more hours could be fined $11,000 per offense, and the drivers themselves could face civil penalties of up to $2,750 for each offense.

Commercial truck drivers and companies must comply with the HOS final rule by July 1, 2013. The rule is being sent to the Federal Register today and is currently available on FMCSA’s Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/HOSFinalRule.


Posted in Job Site Injury, Semi-Truck Crashes, Serious Personal Injury, Transportation, Work Related | No Comments »

Construction of High Speed Rail from Chicago to St. Louis: How Safe (or Dangerous) Is It? Railroad Dangers Are Real.

October 27th, 2011 by admin

Right now, money is still being put together to pay for the planned high speed rail system that will serve the 284 mile Chicago – St. Louis Corridor.  Moreover, there’s still lots of chatter about making things even bigger: this week, the Illinois Department of Transportation announced it wants to add more trips between Joliet and St. Louis, for example, which means more tracks.  Two tracks instead of one.

Corridor Tracks Divided Up Between Railroad Companies

Already, various railroad companies have divied things up: Canadian National (CN) has two tracks already set along its section of the corridor (Joliet – Chicago); Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) has one track in place between between Joliet and Godfrey. In a section that UPRR shares with Kansas City Southern (KCS), one track is set for 10 miles, and then two tracks are ready along another 19 miles. Meanwhile, the Terminal Railroad Association (TRRA) is getting ready for tracks along its 3 mile portion of the Corridor, going over the Mississippi River Bridge and into the St. Louis Terminal.

The High Speed Rail Project has been designed to take some of the travel burden from the cars and planes that currently serve as transportation between Chicago and St. Louis (well, 99% anyway). The goal is to construct two tracks along the Corridor. It’s believed that the new High-Speed Rail will reduce vehicle miles by 1.3 million miles.

What exactly will the High Speed Rail Project do?

From the IDOT website, the following description of these fast trains is given:

IDOT is taking an incremental approach to implementing high-speed rail in the state, similar to how many European countries have implemented high-speed rail service. The 110 miles per hour service on the corridor has the necessary environmental documents, and construction began on September 1, 2010. The public will get first glimpse of 110 mph passenger service between Dwight and Pontiac as early as 2012. IDOT embraces the idea that a network of different but connecting rail services operating at up to both 110 miles per hour and 220 miles per hour may best serve the state’s travel and economic development needs. IDOT recently submitted a grant application to the Federal Railroad Administration for an Alternative Analysis and environmental studies for 220 miles per hour service. However, the application was not selected for funding. Trains operating at 220 miles per hour will be subject to a higher level of safety standards which require grade separations for any rail/highway crossings, dedicated right-of-way and fencing. The development of such a system will take a considerable length of time.

Railroads Are Dangerous — Risk of Serious Personal Injury or Death Now and Later

Railroads, normal ones much less these fancy 220 mph speed demon trains, are dangerous.  Construction of railroads is very risky and workers get seriously injured in the building of these things.  Moreover, once they are built, railway workers are at risk for severe injuries and even death just by doing their work, on the job at the railroad.

Railway workers can be seriously injured from things like equipment failure, driver mistakes or human error, improper supervision, and countless other things.  In fact, it’s so dangerous to work on any railway (much less High Speed Rail) that special federal laws have been passed to protect railroad workers, e.g., The Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA).

Finally, there are all sorts of dangers to the public at large from railroads:  crossings are extremely dangerous in the best of conditions.

Last year, for example, a tragedy that struck a high speed train in Spain was used as an example by local experts of what can happen here, with the proposed new High Speed Rail project.  There, a group of folk tried to run across some tracks after they got off a train, and were crushed to death under the wheels of one of these speeding express trains.

The sad reality is that people are going to be injured or killed from High Speed Rail here — history proves it’s a question of when, not if; therefore, safety concerns should be paramount here as the designs are being nailed down and the budgets are being discussed.  This project needs to be as safe as it can be, from planning stages on paper through actual High Speed Rail use in the years to come.

After all, our family and friends are depending on it.

Posted in Auto Accidents, Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Job Site Injury, Other Jurisdictions, Railroad Workers (FELA), Serious Personal Injury, Transportation, Work Related, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Hours of Service Regulations: How Many Hours Will Truck Drivers Be Allowed to Drive Without a Break on U.S. Roads? HOS Safety vs. Profits Fight in D.C.

October 20th, 2011 by admin

Hours of Service (HOS) regulations are designed to make American roadways safer for everyone: truck drivers and those with whom they share the roads.  Question is: how long should a truck driver be allowed to drive his big rig semi truck before he’s legally required to pull over and get some rest? Hours of service regulations set that limit, but right now there’s a lot of debate up in Washington D.C. on what that number should be.

Next week (October 28, 2011) the new HOS Regulations set up by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last December are set to become the law of the land.  Unless Congress blocks them — which is what Congress is trying to do.  (Read the FMCSA chart of the present HOS regulations and the proposed HOS regulations here.)

President Obama vs. Congress on HOS Rules

The Obama administration has proposed HOS regulations for truck drivers which the Republican Congressional leaders (House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.)) counter will raise trucking industry costs and therefore, harm the U.S. economy.

The two congressmen wrote a letter to President Obama, estimating “$1 billion in regulatory burden,” resulting from the White House’s HOS proposal.  This is on top of the letter sent to the White House by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (which we posted here a few weeks back).

The White House (via its Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) is proposing to cut 1 hour off the current HOS regulations, making truck drivers across the country drive 1 hour less on a trip before they stop for a break.  One hour.

Senate Legislation Introduced To Keep HOS Regulations As They Are: No Obama Decrease

This week, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) introduced proposed legislation to the U.S. Senate that would block the the F.M.C.S.A. from implementing its new HOS rule. The proposal is part of a funding bill stating “… none of the funds made available under this heading may be used to finalize, enforce, or implement the Hours of Service regulations….”

From Senator Kelly Ayotte’s press release on her proposal (full text here), note that this is getting the support of the trucking industry (of course):

U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Transportation Appropriations bill that would block the Obama Administration from implementing its proposed changes for hours-of-service rules for commercial truck drivers. Trucking businesses across the country, including those in New Hampshire, have expressed serious concerns about the negative impact the proposed changes could have on the trucking industry, particularly on small business truckers.

The Administration’s proposed changes could cause significant losses in productivity and increased consumer costs for goods and services, at a time when the economy is still weak. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the proposed changes fail the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) own cost-benefit analysis and could result in productivity losses in the range of $2 billion annually.

“This is yet another heavy-handed federal regulation that would disrupt business operations and increase costs for the trucking industry and consumers, and New Hampshire’s truckers are rightfully concerned about the impact of these changes,” said Senator Ayotte, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee. “My amendment would prevent the Administration from implementing these rules which, by DOT’s own admission, are cost-prohibitive and whose impact on safety is unclear.”

Robert Sculley, President of the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association said, “I commend Senator Ayotte for her initiative to stop unnecessary government interference in the commercial motor carrier industry. Our industry has never been safer. The proposed new rules by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will increase costs and cause delays in deliveries and service. It is critically important that we continue to operate under the current Federal guidelines and we applaud Senator Ayotte in her efforts in this area. Not only will truck owners and operators feel the brunt of additional cost if this change takes place, but so will all New Hampshire residents as almost all goods and services are delivered by truck in New Hampshire. While there is never a good time to unnecessarily increase costs, this could not be a worse time as our country and state struggle to recover from the ongoing economic recession.”

The current rules, in effect since 2003, have successfully reduced crash-related injuries and fatalities, despite truck mileage increasing by 10 billion miles. The FMCSA’s proposed changes would reduce a driver’s maximum daily driving time from 11 hours to 10 hours and reduce the on-duty “work day” from 14 hours to 13 hours. The proposed rule change also would impose new restrictions on the minimum “34-hour restart,” which allows drivers to work more weekly hours if they take 34 consecutive hours off, making use of the minimum period impossible. The changes also fail to account for delays in picking up cargo, known as “detention time.” Senator Ayotte wrote to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood in February and June urging DOT not to implement the new rules changes.

Senator Ayotte’s amendment is supported by the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, the American Trucking Association, and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.

What’s The Big Deal? The FMCSA Explains Reasons for the New Regulations

The new HOS regulations have not been proposed, vetted, and implemented to be effective next week in a vacuum.  The federal agency spent time gathering information from all sides and explains is reasons for making these changes in a news release published awhile back:

“A fatigued driver has no place behind the wheel of a large commercial truck,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We are committed to an hours-of-service rule that will help create an environment where commercial truck drivers are rested, alert and focused on safety while on the job.”

The publication of this proposed rule coincides with the timeframe established in a court settlement agreement that requires FMCSA to publish a final HOS rule by July 26, 2011.

This new HOS proposal would retain the “34-hour restart” provision allowing drivers to restart the clock on their weekly 60 or 70 hours by taking at least 34 consecutive hours off-duty. However, the restart period would have to include two consecutive off-duty periods from midnight to 6:00 a.m. Drivers would be allowed to use this restart only once during a seven-day period.

Additionally the proposal would require commercial truck drivers to complete all driving within a 14-hour workday, and to complete all on-duty work-related activities within 13 hours to allow for at least a one hour break. It also leaves open for comment whether drivers should be limited to 10 or 11 hours of daily driving time, although FMCSA currently favors a 10-hour limit.

“In January, we began this rulemaking process by hosting five public listening sessions with stakeholders across the country,” said FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro. “This proposed rule provides another opportunity for the public to weigh in on a safety issue that impacts everyone on our roadways.”

Driving hours are regulated by federal HOS rules, which are designed to prevent commercial vehicle-related crashes and fatalities by prescribing on-duty and rest periods for drivers.

Commercial truck drivers who violate this proposed rule would face civil penalties of up to $2,750 for each offense. Trucking companies that allow their drivers to violate the proposal’s driving limits would face penalties of up to $11,000 for each offense.

Other key provisions include the option of extending a driver’s daily shift to 16 hours twice a week to accommodate for issues such as loading and unloading at terminals or ports, and allowing drivers to count some time spent parked in their trucks toward off-duty hours.

Posted in Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Job Site Injury, Other Jurisdictions, Semi-Truck Crashes, Serious Personal Injury, Transportation, Work Related, Workers’ Compensation, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Fed’s NTSB Wants to Ban Big Rig Commercial Truck Drivers From Using All Cell Phones Even Hands Free Phone

September 20th, 2011 by admin

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has proposed a federal ban on all usage of cell phones for truckers driving commercial big rig semi trucks as being too dangerous; the ban would apply to both handheld and hands free phones.

On September 13, 2011, the NTSB formally recommended that federal regulations be created that would make it illegal for commercial truck drivers to use mobile phones while on the job, except in the case of emergency.  The NTSB’s reason?  The agency cites the distraction of driving while talking on the phone, even a handsfree phone, is too high when the driver is operating a heavy commercial truck like a big rig, semi truck, tractor trailer, or 18 wheeler.

From NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman:

“Distracted driving is becoming increasingly prevalent, exacerbating the danger we encounter daily on our roadways.  It can be especially lethal when the distracted driver is at the wheel of a vehicle that weighs 40 tons and travels at highway speeds.”

The Big Rig Truck Wreck That Got the Federal Agency’s Attention

In its announcement, the NTSB points to a tragic crash that killed 11 people last year in Kentucky as being a big incentive for the federal agency to take this action. What was this one accident that got the federal government to take notice?

Around a year and a half ago, early in the morning of March 26, 2010, just before sunrise in Munfordville, Kentucky, an experienced truck driver was driving his truck-tractor semitrailer combination unit on Interstate 65, when the big rig veered out of the southbound left lane, jumped the huge highway median (it was 60 feet wide), slammed through a protective cable barrier, and jumped into oncoming traffic in the northbound lanes.

The big rig then crashed into a passenger van filled with 11 people and its driver.  The truck driver and 10 of the 12 riding in the van perished in the accident.  From the investigation, the NTSB found out that the truck driver had been on the phone.  In fact, he had made 4 calls right before the crash and he had made 69 calls and text messages within the previous 24 hours.

His last call? Records show it was made at at 5:14 a.m. CDT, the exact time that the truck departed the highway.

Kenneth J. Allen and Associates Has Been Monitoring What Happened After That Terrible March 2010 Esh Wedding Van Crash

We reported on this horrific crash back in March 2010, when it happened.  An entire family was devastated by this crash as the van occupants were part of the large Esh family, on their way in a church van to a family wedding in Iowa.  See, On I-65, Semi Truck and Church Van Crash Kills 11, where we gave details about the family and what happened back then.  Even the most experienced trial lawyers were shocked and mystified that such a horrendous, horrible, and tragic accident could occur.

Monitoring this tragedy, we’ve also reported on the federal government shutting down the trucking company involved in this horrible accident.  Last year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ordered Hester, Inc. of Fayetteville, Alabama, to be shut down.  See, Feds Close Doors of Trucking Company After Truck Killed 11 in Van on Kentucky Interstate.

This month, we are seeing the federal government continue to take action to make sure that the horrible tragedy that befell the Esh family never happens again on American roadways.  Banning phone chatter and texting by truckers driving huge and heavy big rigs is just one more step in the right direction.

Posted in Bus Crashes, Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Job Site Injury, Other Jurisdictions, Semi-Truck Crashes, Serious Personal Injury, Spinal Injuries, Transportation, Work Related, Workers’ Compensation, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Illinois Workers Compensation System Overhaul Became Law on September 1, 2011: How Does It Impact Your Workers Compensation Claim?

September 15th, 2011 by admin

Workers on the job in Illinois have new laws in place to protect them from injuries and harm now: as of September 1, 2011, the big, big changes made to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act are now the law of the land.

Which means that:

  • if you are a worker who is hurt on the job anywhere in the State of Illinois on or after September 1, 2011, then your injury claims will be governed by this new set of laws – and there are lots of differences between the new Illnois Workers’ Compensation Laws and those worker compensation statutes of the past.
  • even if you were injured before September 1, 2011, the procedures that control your Illinois workers’ compensation claim may change, because the process is governed by this new set of reforms.

What Are The Big Differences Between the Old Illinois Workers Compensation Act and the 2011 Workers Compensation Laws?

When Governor Pat Quinn signed this reform bill into law, he told everyone that one of its results will be to help companies by decreasing the insurance premiums that they have to pay for their workers’ compensation insurance coverage.  And it does — Illinois business will save millions now, some suggest a half-billion dollars a year, because of this new legislation.

However, many are concerned that it will not benefit Illinois working men and women.  For instance:

  • The new laws try to take people out of the courtrooms and into negotiation rooms.
  • The new laws also slash by 30% medical fees allowed to physicians and hospitals who care for workers who have been injured while working on the job.
  • Injuries themselves also got stripped; for example, claims for carpal tunnel syndrome  – an all-too-common and sometimes delibitating worker injury — are being heavily regulated now.

Many believe that this isn’t the end to this story: other laws (and lawsuits) will have to address the reforms that are in place now, because there are either holes in the laws, or they are just plain unfair.  Doctors, for example, are already suggesting that cutting their fees by a third was draconian and they may fight against this.

What Happens to Illinois Workers Now?  It’s Not Clear.

Right now, some believe that it will take years before the dust settles on the reforms that became effective this month.  This, despite the fact that an on the job work injury can be so devastating to a family.  When a father or mother is seriously injured while at work, so much so that he or she cannot do their job, then the family is in crisis.  The law should be swift in its protection, and there is a real concern that workers may suffer not just in their injuries but in getting deserved legal redress for them.

Workers on the job in the State of Illinois are vulnerable to all sorts of serious on the job work injuries as well as the risk of wrongful death while on the job in:

  • Construction Injuries
  • Explosions
  • Fires
  • Equipment Malfunction
  • Machine Malfunction
  • Electrocution
  • Railroad Workers (FELA) Job Site Injury
  • Mill Accidents
  • Falls
  • Slips
  • Longshoremen & Maritime Job Site Injury

If you have a question about how the reforms to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Laws may impact you or a loved one and your workers compensation claim, please feel free to contact our offices by email or phone (see the toll-free number above).

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

Garbage Truck Worker Dies While On the Job: Trash Trucks Are Dangerous

September 6th, 2011 by admin

It is well-known within the industry that working on the job collecting trash is a dangerous line of work.  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health was demanding more safety regulations be in place for garbage trucks back in 1992, when the federal government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration didn’t even have safety regulations in place for these huge and heavy trash collectors.  Even today, trash trucks aren’t given the same regulatory treatment as other kinds of commercial trucks under federal regulations.

Learning of any employee being seriously injured or killed while earning a day’s pay working on the job is never easy: when it is a young man not even out of his teenage years working as a garbage collector, it’s truly heartwrenching.

17 Year Old Teen Dies While Working On the Job as Indiana Garbage Collector

In today’s news, we learn that the family of a seventeen (17) year old boy is grieving today, after he was killed in a horrific accident yesterday afternoon while working on the job on a moving front-loading garbage truck. The teenager was working for his family’s own trash collecting business, picking up garbage near Parker City, Indiana, when he and a co-worker fell off the front end of the moving truck after it bucked on a rough patch of roadway. Both were run over by the huge machine.

Unfortunately, the 17 year old young man died from his injuries; he has been identified in the news media as Stephen Tiller of Greenville, Ohio, and today our sincerest condolences go out to his family and loved ones.

His co-worker remains hospitalized at IU Health Ball Memorial Hospital in Muncie, where he is recovering from a broken leg.

Garbage Trucks Are Huge, Powerful, and Sometimes Deadly

The cause of this teenager’s death is not confirmed yet: media reports have the coroner arguing that the boy should not have been on the front of the garbage truck; however, it’s understandable why he might have been there — this was a front-loading truck (image below).

Did the truck itself play a part in this travesty?  We don’t know.  What were those road conditions?  We don’t know.  What we all do know is that workers should be safe on the job, especially when they work on trucks like this — which everyone knows to be dangerous (image shown is merely an example of a front-loading garbage truck, this one operated by Waste Management, a company not known to be involved in any way with today’s tragedy):

From Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain Image

Posted in Defective Products, Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Job Site Injury, Motorcycle Accidents, Serious Personal Injury, Transportation, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Workers Are No Safer From Fatal On the Job Work Injuries This Year: 12 Workers Die Each Day Working On The Job

August 30th, 2011 by admin

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is responsible for investigating and reporting the number of American workers who are killed on the job each year, and this week, the Secretary of Labor released their preliminary findings. It’s not good.

Imagine: you leave for work one morning, just like any other day, but that will be your last morning to see your wife, to tell your kids goodbye. No one gets advanced warning that they will die in a work injury beforehand.

Imagine: you give your spouse a quick peck on the cheek as you run out the door, never thinking that this will be the last time you will see them – because that day, they will be fatally injured while doing their job.

American Workers Are Still Being Fatally Injured On the Job and The Statistics Haven’t Decreased: 12 American Workers Die Each Day On The Job

The National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries reports that there has not been any real change in making American workers safer — in 2010, the number of workplace fatalities was 4547, compared 4551 with 2009. Among its findings:

  • The number of fatal injuries among wage and salary workers increased by 2 percent in 2010.
  • Fatal work injuries in the private mining industry increased 74% percent.
  • Work-related fatalities resulting from fires more than doubled from 2009 to 2010, with the most Americans dying from fire last year than any year since 2003.
  • The number of fatal workplace injuries among police officers increased by 40%.

It is a Modern Tragedy to have any American Worker Die While On the Job, Doing His or Her Work

In response, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis issued the following statement:

“No worker should have to sacrifice his or her life to earn a living. An average 12 workers die on the job every day, and that reality continues to drive the work of the Labor Department. When the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970, the National Safety Council estimated that 14,000 workers died each year on the job. Now, with a workforce that has doubled in size, the annual number of fatalities has dropped significantly. But it’s not enough. We cannot relent from our enforcement of laws that keep our nation’s workers safe. One worker killed or injured on the job is one too many.

As our economy continues to strengthen and the workforce expands, we at the Department of Labor will remain resolute in our mission to ensure that safety is not sacrificed as America’s workers provide for themselves and their families. My constant focus is ‘good jobs for everyone,’ and safety is an essential part of that equation.”

Kenneth J. Allen & Associates Agrees With Secretary Solis: 12 American Workers Dying Each Day is Unacceptable

Having twelve Americans die EVERY DAY while working on their jobs is a shockingly high number for modern America today.  Representing families and loved ones who are dealing with this sort of tragedy gives a perspective to these numbers that only serves to excerbate how heartwrenching and unacceptable these statistics are … especially in our local community, where we have countless families who send loved ones off to mines and mills and other dangerous environments daily.

It is only through legislation, regulation, and judicial decision that employers will place people over profits.

Please be careful out there.

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

Feds Change Hazardous Materials Regs for Trucks and Semis and Carriers on the Road

August 23rd, 2011 by admin

Hazardous Materials are dangerous things: they involve cargo that could explode, projecting things at great speeds, or gases that could silently kill lots of people and animals, or things that can start big fires. When this stuff has to be moved from place to place, it’s a high risk event – and something that is heavily regulated.

This month, as part of the continuing CSA 2011 implementation (see our earlier discussion of that program here), changes have been made in how hazardous materials are transported in our nation.

1. Hazardous Materials are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations

Also known as “HazMat,” they have been defined by the Department of Transportation as:

(1) Hazardous Substances, (2) Hazardous Wastes, (3) Marine Pollutants, (4) Elevated Temperature Material (5) Materials identified in 172.101, and (6) Materials meeting the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 173.

They include: radioactive material; explosives; material poisonous by inhalation; and compressed or refrigerated liquefied methane or liquefied natural gas, or other liquefied gas with a methane content of at least 85 percent.

2. Carriers Transporting Hazardous Materials Must Meet Special Criteria – the HM Intervention Threshold

When any motor carrier is moving a cargo of stuff defined by law to be “hazardous material” then that carrier must meet federal regulations on how that HazMat is packaged, moved, and labelled.  The shipping cartons must be labeled; the boxes that the cartons are placed inside must be labelled; the truck or trailer must likewise be labelled.  The Hazardous Materials warning labels are called “placards” in the law:

General placarding requirements are contained in 49 CFR Subpart F Part 172. Each person who offers for transportation any hazardous materials subject to the HMR shall comply with the applicable placarding requirements. Applicability of placarding requirements 172.500: Placarding is not required for infectious substances, ORM-D, limited quantities, small quantity shipments, and combustible liquids in non-bulk packages. Placards may not be displayed on any packaging, freight container, unit load device, motor vehicle or rail car unless the placard represents a hazardous material loaded into or onto the conveyance unless the shipment is in accordance with the TDG Regulation, the IMDG Code or the UN Recommendations.

General placarding requirements are contained in 172.504. Each bulk packaging, freight container, unit load device, transport vehicle, or rail car containing any quantity of hazardous materials must be placarded on each side and each end with the placards specified in Tables 1 and 2.

172.504 contains a number of notes and exceptions to these requirements. When two or more Table 2 materials are contained in the same transport vehicle, the Dangerous” placard may be used instead of the specific placard required for each hazard class. However, when 1,000 kg (2,205 lbs.) or more of a single category of HM is loaded on a transport vehicle, the placard specified for that material must be displayed.

172.504(c) contains an exception from the placarding requirement for shipments that contain less 454 kg (1,001 pounds) of Table 2 materials. A frequent problem encountered involves the 1,001 lbs. exception. The 1,001 lbs. is aggregate gross weight. Aggregate gross weight is the total weight of all hazardous materials and its packaging loaded on a single transport vehicle.

3.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Has Changed The Criteria for HazMat Intervention Threshold.

This month, FMCSA issued its new, redefined criteria for deciding which motor carriers are legally required to meet the federal Hazardous Materials intervention threshold. FMCSA made these changes so it would be easier for the government to spot motor carriers that were transporting hazardous materials and to insure that the carriers were doing so safely and efficiently.

In the future, motor carriers must face new thresholds in the transport of placarded quantities of HM; usually, 1,001+ pounds.  Before now, the HazMat intervention threshold on motor carriers was based solely on their registration information indicating they transported any quantity of HM.

Problem was: some carriers who were not carrying placardable quantities of HazMat were subjected to the HM threshold, while some motor carriers that were carrying Hazardous Materials weren’t being subjected to the regs.

Now, the HM intervention threshold applies to American motor carriers transporting Hazardous Materials in quantities that legally require the warning placard (“HazMat”) based on operational evidence. They meet one of the following criteria:

  1. Inspection in the last 24 months where the motor carrier was identified as carrying placardable quantity of hazmat;
  2. Review or safety audit in the last 24 months where the motor carrier was identified as carrying placardable quantity of hazmat; or
  3. Motor carrier has a hazmat permit.

Trucks and trains and other motor carriers transporting hazardous materials are only allowed to move along certain routes, routes approved by the government as being safe for these kinds of dangerous loads. If you see one of these motor carriers with its distinctive red and white “Haz Mat” warning labels, then give it a wide berth.

Every big rig or semi truck on the road is dangerous in traffic; however, these HazMat loads are extremely high risk. If you are driving near a HazMat load, be especially careful – and let that driver have the right of way, even if he’s wrong to take it.

Be careful out there.

Posted in Explosions & Fires, Job Site Injury, Semi-Truck Crashes, Serious Personal Injury, Transportation, Work Related, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

We Cannot Trust Products We Buy to be Safe: Consider These Fines, Imposed on Respected US Companies for Putting Dangerous Products On Our Store Shelves

August 18th, 2011 by admin

Companies are out to make money, and that is a good thing when you consider that the company pays employees’ wages and sets up insurance and pension benefits.  Having companies interested in making money isn’t such a good thing when they do things like fail to report their products can hurt people, because they want to keep selling those products to unsuspecting consumers for a profit.

Sure, but those are just the shady companies right?  Surely the nationally known and long respected corporations that have products in stores across the country wouldn’t do this, right? Wrong.

Consider this.  So far, in the first half of August 2011, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that these three national companies, while not admitting that anyone knowingly violated the law or did anything wrong, will collectively pay over a million dollars in penalties – and that is just in the first two weeks of this month:

1. Black & Decker Agrees to $960,000 Civil Penalty for Failing to Report Defective Grasshog XP Weed Trimmer/Edgers

…Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., of Towson, Md., has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $960,000. … The settlement resolves CPSC staff’s allegations that Black & Decker knowingly failed to report several safety defects and hazards with the Grasshog XP immediately to CPSC, as required by federal law. CPSC staff also alleges the firm withheld information requested by CPSC staff during the course of the investigation.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC.

CPSC staff alleges Black & Decker knew, on or before May 2006, that the high-powered, electric Grasshog XP GH1000 was defective and could cause harm, but failed to report this to CPSC.

CPSC staff also alleges that Black & Decker failed to provide full information about defects with the Grasshog XP as requested in May 2006. Based on the incomplete information provided at that time, CPSC closed the case. The firm did not give CPSC staff full information about the extent of Grasshog XP defects or the mounting number of incidents and injuries until October 2006.

In July 2007, Black & Decker and CPSC announced the recall of about 200,000 Grasshog XP model GH1000 trimmer/edgers. By that time, there were more than 700 reports of incidents, including 58 injuries with the Grasshog XP. The trimmer/edgers’s spool, spool cap and pieces of trimmer string can come loose during use and become projectiles. This poses a serious laceration hazard to the user and to bystanders. The trimmer/edgers also can overheat and burn consumers. Black & Decker sold the Grasshog XP weed trimmers from November 2005 through spring 2007 for about $70.

The recall was reannounced in August 2009 with an additional 100 injuries reported. CPSC urges consumers with recalled Grasshog XP trimmer/edgers to contact Black & Decker for a free repair kit.

2. Perfect Fitness Must Pay a $425,000 Civil Penalty for Failing to Report Its Exercise Equipment Causes Falls

….The penalty agreement resolves staff allegations that Perfect Fitness knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law, about a defect with the handles of Perfect Pullup exercise equipment. The defect causes the handles of the product to break during use, resulting in a fall hazard to consumers.

CPSC staff alleges that Perfect Fitness concluded in June 2008 that its exercise equipment was defective following retesting of the handle design. The testing was done after the firm received a complaint and, according to the firm’s internal review, an unusual number of product returns. Perfect Fitness redesigned the product to correct the defect in July 2008.

CPSC staff alleges that Perfect Fitness was aware of at least 23 injuries associated with its product in March 2010 and posted a notice on its website to let consumers know they could get free replacement handles. Staff alleges the firm told consumers that the original handles were “inferior” and could result in an “accident.”

The firm did not report the defect to CPSC until December 2010. By that time, CPSC staff alleges the firm was aware of at least 45 complaints of injury associated with the handles breaking and had received more than 2,000 requests for replacements.

In February 2011, the firm and CPSC announced a recall of about 7,000 Perfect Pullups. The exercise equipment with the original handles sold for between $80 and $100 at sporting goods stores nationwide and on Amazon.com from January 2008 through February 2011. The exercise equipment with the original handles was also sold through direct television marketing and on the firm’s website during some of 2008.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or violates any consumer product safety rule, or any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban enforced by the CPSC.


3. CVS Must Pay $45,000 Civil Penalty for Failing to Report Drawstrings in Children’s Jackets Can Strangle Kids

The penalty resolves CPSC staff’s allegations that CVS knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law, that it had sold children’s hooded jackets with drawstrings at the neck from August 2008 to January 2009. Children’s upper outerwear with drawstrings, including sweatshirts, sweaters, and jackets, poses strangulation and entanglement hazards to children that can result in serious injury or death. In March 2009, CPSC and the importer of the jackets announced a recall of the products, which were sold under the brand names Golden Grove and Young USA.

In 1996, CPSC issued drawstring guidelines (pdf) to help prevent children from strangling on or getting entangled in the neck and waist drawstrings of upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. In 2006, CPSC’s Office of Compliance announced that children’s upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded as defective and presenting a substantial risk of injury to young children.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

Note: On June 29, 2011, the Commission approved a final rule that designates children’s upper outerwear in sizes 2T through 12 with neck or hood drawstrings, and children’s upper outerwear in sizes 2T through 16 with certain waist or bottom drawstrings, as substantial product hazards.

What This Means to You, The American Consumer Buying Products in Illinois or Indiana

In each of the instances, products that were dangerous were setting on store shelves for people to buy.  Products that could hurt someone, maybe even kill a child.

When you buy anything in this country, you cannot assume that you are safe just because the product has made it to the store.  You’re not. All too often, people are seriously injured before companies will agree to take their products out of the marketplace – because profits, sadly, are all too often prioritized over people.

If you think you or a loved one have been hurt by a product, then you can do several things.  You can report it to your local consumer protection advocacy group, you can report it to state officials, you can report it to federal agencies like the CPSC.  You can complain to the store, you can call the manufacturer.

However, none of these things will provide you with an avenue to seek monetary compensation for the damages that you or a loved one have sustained.  To pursue a claim for justice, you must seek the help of a personal injury lawyer experienced in product liability claims.  That’s right: you will have to make a claim and maybe file a lawsuit to get the company to take responsibility.


Posted in Defective Products, Electrocution, Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Job Site Injury, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Spinal Injuries, Transportation, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Indiana State Fair Stage Collapse, Explosion at Illinois Plant: Who Is Responsible for Serious Personal Injury and Death Under the Law?

August 16th, 2011 by admin

The news in our area is filled with tragedy this week:  there is continuing national coverage (as well as YouTube videos) of the outdoor stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair last Saturday evening and there is local coverage of the tragic Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America plant explosion this morning in Hersher, Illinois.

At Work and At Play, Dangerous Conditions Result in Serious Injuries This Week

Latest reports have 5 workers hurt, with 2 workers seriously injured, in the blast that happened today while these folk were on the job in the NE Illinois gas works. All have been hospitalized and their current conditions are unknown.

News reports have five people dead as the result of the Indiana State Fair stage collapse with many of the crowd injured as a result of the 3-story stage falling to the ground, by some reports because of a sudden gust of wind. A doctor on the scene at the time of the tragedy gave his own personal account of the event, describing the stage as falling down “in slow motion” and that what he saw that day was “unbelievable.”

Meanwhile, USA Today is reporting that no state agency appears to have had responsibility for insuring that the Indiana State Fair facilities were safe for the people attending — it seems that not only did no agency take responsiblity for that duty, according to USA Today’s coverage, it may well be that no state agency had been given the legal duty to do so.

Legal Responsibility for Personal Injury Under State and Federal Law

Both federal law as well as state law protects workers on the job and people who attend popular events, like a concert during a state fair.  Workers’ compensation laws have been enacted in Indiana and Illinois to insure that workers hurt on the job are protected, and federal laws are also on the books to insure workplace safety.  The gas plant in Illinois will have state workers’ compensation claims filed by the injured victims to face was well as federal agency investigations into why that explosion occurred.   If tragedy hits and one of the blast victims dies, then wrongful death claims under Illinois law can be pursued.

However, traditionally workers have been better protected on the books that concertgoers, especially to a state event.  Governments are usually protected by something called “governmental immunity” under state and federal law, which means that state agencies cannot be sued for personal injury claims unless the state legislature allows it.  Additionally, there are defenses in the law for “Acts of God,” where mysterious winds or other natural events that cannot be predicted nor controlled will bar holding any party legally responsible.

In the Indiana State Fair matter, things are sticky right now.  Were the high winds an Act of God?  Will sovereign immunity claims bar any wrongful death claims by the decedents’ loved ones or estates?  Will the manufacturers, the concert promoters, the contractors who assembled the stage itself be liable for damages?  It’s not clear today, but questions are being asked – not just by personal injury lawyers but by reporters at Time Magazine and Rolling Stone.

Posted in Explosions & Fires, Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Insurance Claims, Job Site Injury, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Work Related, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

« Older Entries