7360Re: [infoguys-list] The strange death of Mr. Ranger
- Jan 29, 2005Mr Ranger's widow should be fully compensated for the loss of her husband
and the breadwinner of the family.
Mr Ralph was partially at fault because he operated a vehicle that he knew
was missing some safety devises. Iwould have to guess he wanted hes job and
did not want to quite to have the owner fulfill his dutys as the owner of
business. Every body seems to be penny rich and dollar poor. The Fuges
must take the bulk of the responsibility. As the owner he must adheer to
all the safety rules. A safe place should be a fair expectation of anyone
on his property. Debby
Date: 01/29/05 05:50:58
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: [infoguys-list] The strange death of Mr. Ranger
Here is a new and bizarre case, I need your opinions on.
all proceeds go to either Schiff Liver Center or
Ryan .. your choice.
thanks in advance for your help.
On November 2, 2001, Mr. Ranger, owner/operator of a dump truck, traveled to
a dirt pit to assist with an excavation job. Upon arrival to the job site Mr
Ranger's dump truck was loaded with the assistance of a 1989 Trackhoe
by a Mr. Ralph, and owned by Fuge's Dirt Pit. Custom dictates that after a
dump truck is fully loaded, the trackhoe operator will blow its horn to
the driver of the dump truck to move forward with its load. Unfortunately,
trackhoe in question did not have a functioning horn. Mr. Ralph has
that he signaled with his hand to Mr. Ranger when the truck was full. He
further testified that Mr. Ranger began to walk towards the front of his
that Mr. Rangerâs tarp was down. Worthy of note is that Mr. Ranger's dump
truck was unique in that it did not have an automatic electric tarp crank,
Ranger used a hand crank which required him to exit his truck and crank the
from the outside. Mr. Ralph, the trackhoe operator, testified that he knew
Ranger had to exit his truck to accomplish this. Following the signal to Mr.
Ranger, Mr. Ralph backed up an unknown distance and then apparently rotated
the top boom chassis of the trackhoe in a counter clockwise position. During
this time, although the exact mechanism of injury is not knowm, Mr. Ranger
crushed to death between his truck and the boom chassis of the trackhoe
standing at the rear of his dump truck. It is this death which is the basis
the pending action in court. An action was brought by Mr. Ranger's widow,
his three young children.
There are a number of issues which point to the fault of the deceased, Mr.
Ranger. Initially, it is expected that as a professional driver, Mr. Ranger
should have acted more cautiously and avoided the accident. Secondly, the
will impute third party fault on the seller or manufacturer of the trackhoe.
These issues will be explored below.
The trackhoe in question was purchased by Jack and Jan Fuge, owners of
Dirt Pit from DenMar Enterprises as a used , âas isâ tractor. It is not
disputed that at the time if purchase, the trackhoe did not have a
horn, travel alarm, or rear view mirror. This was known by the operator, Mr.
Ralph. Mr. Ralph also testified that he knew these safety devices were
be in place and that he was aware that they were not. It is uncertain
Mr. Fuge knew of this necessity. It did have these items, as is required, at
the time of manufacture, however. Mirrors on a trackhoe are used the same as
with a car, to view the area behind the tractor. Horns are also used in the
same manner as with a car, to alarm or signal others. Travel alarms or
commercial tractors and sound a high pitched âbeep, beep!â when the
is moving. The tractor that killed Mr. Ranger had none of these items in
In an effort to clarify the manufacturerâs position as to the suggested
of the trackhoe, a coporate engineerâs deposition was taken. Mr. George
an engineer with 25 years of experience with trackhoes agreed to testify. Mr
Lump was directly employed by Kobelco (Manufacturer of the trackhoe) and was
charge of distribution, trading, and application of trackhoes in America.
Basically, he testified that had Mr. Ralph utilized proper procedures with a
horn, a travel alarm, and use of the mirror, then Mr. Ranger would probably
have been killed. He stated the alarms would have been audible and Mr. Ralph
could have seen him with a rear view mirror. He further opines that in his
opinion, Mr. Ralph had a duty to make sure Mr. Ranger had cleared the area
danger. This could have been accomplished merely by waiting for Mr. Ranger's
truck to pull out.
In addition to the above, the operatorâs manual for the tractor, suggests
that a flagman be used for safe operation, that the horn be blown before
traveling or swinging the boom and that safety requires the operator to
check the job site before moving. In addition, the manual emphasizes the
importance of safety mechanisms such as the travel alarm. The Fugeâs
trackhoe was sold to them without an operators manual.
We may never know exactly what Mr. Ranger was doing behind his truck at the
time of his death. The defense believes that Mr. Ranger disobeyed the
to leave and returned to the back of his truck placing his own life in
What do you think about?
What fault, if any, on the part of Mr. Fuge and Mr. Ralph as an employee?
What fault, if any, of Mr. Ranger ?
What fault, if any, on the part of the manufacurer?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
To subscribe, send an empty message to <a href=
To unsubscribe, send a message to <a href=
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic