Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

bucket comments so far

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    thought I d share some of the comments with you to see what you think so far. thanks for sharing your opinions so far. Let me know if you think of anything
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 21, 2008
      thought I'd share some of the comments with you to see what you think so far.
      thanks for sharing your opinions so far. Let me know if you think of
      anything else.
      Amy



      [AMY] There are 40 bolts connecting the lift to the truck. Some were
      missing and some were loose. Pablo's experts will testify that the
      lift was defective, because it should have been designed to retain
      the bolts.

      [MIKE] Amy, you should tell your lawyers they need new experts or
      need to make sure that no one on the jury knows a thing about
      mechanics. While I feel sorry for Pablo's condition and believe that
      he is entitled to compensation, if I were on the jury and had to
      listen to this garbage, I would reduce the amount because I would
      think the case is weak otherwise why resort to lying and
      misrepresentation.

      No truthful expert will testify that the lift is a defective design
      because the bolts loosened. All bolts have the ability to loosen. It
      is the nature of bolts.


      [AMY] They also claim that there was a problem with the
      warnings/inspection and maintenance.

      [MIKE] It is the owner's responsibility to perform the designated
      maintenance and inspections. In the case of lifts a lot of companies
      train the lift operators on how to do visual inspections. You might
      want to check to see if the employer gave Pablo any training on
      ensuring the lift was safe. They should have. If they did not they
      should be held lible if they did, it will reduce Pablo's award.

      [AMY] They claim that the manuals failed to explain that 20 bolts
      are tightened by using an upward motion and 20 bolts are tightened
      by using a downward motion.

      [MIKE] Where did they get these experts? This is laughable.
      Depending where the bolts are located will determine the direction of
      motion. Almost all bolts or screws tighten using a clockwise motion
      and loosen using a counter clockwise motion [Lefty loosey right
      tighty for those who cannot tell time by a non-digital watch.]
      >
      >
      [AMY] The lift manufacturer's experts will testify that this lift is
      designed as all other aerial lifts are (which there are thousands)
      and there is nothing wrong with the design and no reason to alter
      the design. Further, the maintenance manual dictates that the lift
      be inspected daily, monthly, bi-annually and that these inspections
      and ordinary maintenance would have prevented the
      > bolts from coming loose, as is the case with 1,000's of lifts.

      [MIKE] This is in all likelihood true. If you remember, Southwest
      Airlines recently was heavily fined by the FAA for skipping a lot of
      preventive maintenance. It sounds as if the employer not the
      manufacturer should be heavily fined.
      >
      [AMY] The manufacturer states that Pablo's employer is to blame for
      poor maintenance and is grossly negligent.

      [MIKE] I'd be careful on this one. I do not know what the sta ndqrd
      is for a frivolous lawsuit, but I can tell you I'd be pissed at
      Pablo's lawyers for suing the manufacturer and would probably take it
      out on Pablo. As I said earlier, the evidence showing the
      manufacturer is to balme is laughable.

      As Jena previously said, the evidence points to the employer. Why is
      he not being sued? Let me guess, he's related to Pablo or he has no
      insurance.

      [AMY] I do not know the age of the lift, or how long the employer
      owned the lift and did routine maintenance on it, but can find out
      if you want.

      [MIKE] It's not needed. The loose bolts were visible. It is obvious
      that very little to no PM was being done. If he had just bought it,
      he is still guilty for not doing due diligence. If it is any older
      than that the loose bolts should have been found and tightened
      during one of the visual inspections.






      _______________________


      Manufacture, based on only what you have, I don't see a problem with and
      would acquit the maker.
      Maintenance is another story. The employer should be drawn and quartered
      and have their entrails pulled out in the heat of the day and placed in Fire
      Ant mounds to be consumed.


      _____


      I am in the construction business.
      There is not a machine made that will not loosen up and or break over time.
      This would be considered common knowledge.
      Even the finest machines need inspection & maintenance.
      Even a casual inspection would have seen the problem before it became a
      hazard.
      I also would have made it the responsibility of the user, to do an
      inspection for his
      own good & he should have done so even if not told to. But as is often the
      case
      workers have no knowledge of the risks & possibilities unless instructed.
      If you were not raised around machines you may have no clue.
      Yes the manufacturer will point to all the ones with no failures.

      _________________


      To me this is a rather simple case.

      Anything of this sort requires safety inspections, even the manual states
      that there should be inspected daily, monthly and biannually. As there
      were missing bolts it is obvious that the inspections were not done.

      I would say it is the employer's liability.
      _________________________






      I would need to know how often maintenance was done & by whom & what
      kind of training that individual had on this particular lift.




      ________________


      They claim that the manuals failed to explain that 20 bolts are tightened
      by using an
      upward motion and 20 bolts are tightened by using a downward motion.


      Assuming that 50% of the required 40 bolts were tightened at all in either
      direction by a half-wit either slowly (or "half-fast"), then that still
      leaves
      the other 50% of the bolts to hold the bucket securely, or presumably enough
      to make certain the bucket doesn't collapse, or that a reasonably
      intelligent person possessing some measure of common sense would note the
      bucket was
      wobbly and have enough time to get down before the other 50% of the bolts
      gave
      way.

      Is the manual written in both English and Spanish? Is the maintenance crew

      able to read the manual (if they are not either English or Spanish,
      but...say....French, Croatian or Chinese?). If the maintenance crew is
      given a manual
      that explains the procedure by their employer, and they can either read the
      manual or are given a translated copy OR instruction in their native
      language
      (as is the responsibility of the employer), then I fail to see where the
      manufacturer could be held responsible.



      >>>>>
      Took place in Miami, where Creole, English and spanish are spoken. not sure
      if it was written in all these languages, will try to find out.. good
      point!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


      Pablo has the right to expect safe working conditions to be provided by his
      employer.



      ____________________





      **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
      Home.
      (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.