Re: communication?/policy? or stupidity
- Some of the blame may be placed on Growers as they were aware that
dusk would be inspecting the truck. But most of the blame should go
to dusk himself. He should have informed the driver, taken the keys,
chocked the tires, opened the hood or put his truck near the
vehicle. I agree any one of the steps he was trained to do would
have prevented this accident. Assumedly he had been working around
this type of truck and under these conditions for a length of time
and knew that they might move.
Was the supervisor that dusk spoke to in charge of the complex? Or
just some parts of the operation? Since he was not mentioned by
name I assume he will not be considered.
Wilmer Ed should also shoulder some of the blame. If you see someone
near your truck you always look before you move.
I would put 25% on Growers 25% on Wilmer and 50% on Dusk.
I don't think that speaking English would have any bearing, walking
around a truck before moving it is Omni lingual.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jurydoctor@... wrote:
> $5 donation will be given to healing horses, for each opinion.
> advance. This one is interesting!!
> Parties - Cyde and Bonnie Dusk (Plaintiffs) are the parents of
> Inspector Ryan Dusk, deceased.
> The Defendants are Growers,
> Growers Trucking, and Wilmer Ed (employee of Growers).
> Facts - Ryan Dusk was employed by Hayes Enterprises ("Hayes",
> herein). Hayes was contracted by Growers to
> come onto the Growers site and service the Growers
> trucks on site.
> On the date of the incident, Wilmer and three
> other Hispanic workers were unloading a box truck ("Truck 5") at
> Growers. They were unloading pallets of flowers from the
> > driver's side of the truck and stacking them in a gravel lot.
> > area around them filled up with flowers, Wilmer would move the
> > forward 10 to 15 feet. Ryan Dusk came onto the Growers site
> > to inspect the brakes on Truck 5.
> Dusk spoke with a supervisor about
> > his intentions and asked about the location of Truck 5. The
> told Dusk that Truck 5 was being unloaded. Dusk walked by
> Truck 5, intending to check the brakes on all four tires. The
> the front can be checked by looking at the wheel from the
> brakes on the back can only be checked by getting under the truck
> looking at the inside of the wheel. Dusk did not speak to any of
> Growers workers. In fact, three of the four workers never saw
> him. However, Wilmer caught a glimpse of Dusk looking at the
> driver's side tire. Wilmer looked away to take a pallet of
> When he looked back, Dusk was gone. At the time, Wilmer did not
> who Dusk was, what Dusk was there to do, or why Dusk was there.
> Dusk did not have a uniform, and was not carrying any tools.
> few minutes, Wilmer got into the truck to move it forward again.
> pulled forward approximately 15 feet. He felt a bump and heard a
> He stopped the truck and discovered that Dusk was under the
> had been run over. Dusk died five days later from his injuries.
> Issues and Disputes - Plaintiffs will argue Growers knew that
> Dusk was on the property and should have taken steps to ensure his
> safety; that Wilmer saw him by the front tire and should have
> around the truck to determine that he was not nearby; that Wilmer
> seen Dusk's legs in the side view mirror, because they
> likely would have been sticking out while he was under the truck
> checking the rear brakes. Plaintiffs argue that Growers did not
> train its employees propertly and that it was negligent for hiring
> workers who may not be able to speak much English.
> (Amy sez: this is an interesting issue I'd like to discuss: Is it
> to hire folks that can not speak the native language very well?)
> Defendants will argue that Dusk was trained to perform various
> steps prior to working on a vehicle. He was trained to (1) inform
> management of his arrival; (2) inform anyone working with a
> his presence and intent; (3) move his work truck near the vehicle
> worked on; (4) place wheel chocks under the tires to keep the
> being working on from moving; (5) pull the keys from the vehicle
> worked on; (6) lift the hood on the vehicle being worked on; (7)
> the vehicle being worked on to a designated area (concrete pad
> greenhouse) prior to working. Dusk did not do any of the these,
> the exception of "checking in" with the yard supervisor. Had he
> performed any of the other six measures, the "accident" would not
> Dusk's supervisor has testified that he was trained to do all of
> things prior to this incident.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]