A lot of the above responses seem to blame the electrician, not the company. What happens is the electrician says, "I want to shut this circuit off" and the manager says, "You can't shut it off because it will cause [insert some inconvenience here]." Between the lines: if you don't do it, we will find somebody who will. So the guy, anxious for work, goes ahead and does it. The fine should have been much larger. ~Peter

The village idiot has made a believer of the non compliant for ages.

This lesson proves once again, pleading guilty in any court hamstrings the judge and jury with no other choice.

Owners are not liable for contractor errors, unless they are complicit. This owner offered no evidence of required safety compliance, no signed policy, no examination record of contractors qualifications, or safety equipment, gloves, etc..

This owner provides the perfect example of what happens to village idiots with no clue of occupational hazard, the liabilities, or need for legal representation.

I'm sure that a fine is just what is needed to prevent another accident. This man was hired to work as a contractor on the plant. I blame the electrician for not using good judgment. I could agree with this if the plant employed their own men to work on the relays and had no LOTO procedures in place but even at that.......it is up to you to protect yourself.

I have also encountered a few things that were not as deenergized as advertised. Things like a SquareD switchboard plug ( not their fault ) where the door interlock was worn down enough to allow the door to be opened with the power on. Bad enough that with a switchboard it is possible to grab the wrong handle and turn off the wrong thing.

During the summer of 1981 I encountered a 3-way switching circuit that had 2 hot wires and 2 neutrals supplying a light bulb. The previous electricians had a devil of a time figuring out how they were getting zero, 120 volts, or 240 volts across the bulb depending on the switch position. This was the circuit that has the common terminals of the 3-way switches connected to the lampholder such that either or both terminals ot the lampholder can be hot.

Remember,

1. paranoia is a survival skill around electrical equipment or any other machine.

2. Electrical equipment contains surprises.

3. Mice like to chew on the wires.

4. Thanks to yellow jackets and snakes, deenergized electrical equipment is still hazardous. over at www dot themeterbuy dot com there are photos of meter sockets from OG+E that have snakes in them. Since snakes do not have perspiration glands they can merely warm themselves up by wrapping thenselves around the 240 volts or 480 volts.

Mike Cole

Sounds like a life is worth 130000$ doesn't that make you wanna work on something that the low bidder installed.

Why do we rarely see similiar postings about incidents in the US? Who compiles this data?

Wouldn't the person doing the work be the one responsible for tagging and locking out the switch / circuit breaker or whatever device was supplying the power source ? How can you justify suing over ones personal negligence ? Of course I am saddened that this person lost his life and sympathize for the family and friends but the responsibility for ones own safety in such circumstances falls I believe on the individual performing the work !

An employer is liable for working conditions, and yes an employee has a right and obligation to question unsafe conditions, but step back here a second people. How much sense does a law make that fines a dead guy? Even if "only" crippled, how is an out of work invalid supposed to pay?

The money is not going to bring him back. The only thing this has accomplished is that this company will be more diligent in the future. The tradgedy here is that the deceased either did not know the standard operation procedures or did not think he needed to abide by them. It is fortutious for this company that no one else was injured in this truly preventable incident.

First of all, the statues and codes don't set enough of a protection for any and all Electricians(licensed or unlicensed). The normal thought process of most feel that working on "energized" equipment is "just part of the "risk" of the job?? Totally WRONG! The manufacturers of all panels and switch gear have a UL tag that states.."this equipment shall be De-energized before being worked on..." Well the "supermen" of the Trade and this poor soul that we now must greive, was one who thought that they are above the needed safety of De-enerization. Well. although we feel sorry for the families and co-workers, we must lay fault that the option and or better, the MANDATORY practice to "shut it off and LOCK it out, was not chosen by this fellow. I believe the ones that choose to play "russian roulette" with their lives and the lives of others can only expect to lose sometimes??? Why? Finally, I expect a large group of Electrical personel will get perked up and not agree with our reply, but when it says ..."shut it off....."..just DO IT.! Dead Equipment Doesn't Kill !

I think as an electrician it is your responsability to take care of yourself. I have been an electrician for 25 yrs and never have trusted anyone to lock out or tag out any electrical equipment for me. Sad to hear of another loss from somthing that could have been avoided.

Mike Pagano IBEW Local 309

I find it interesting and honestly a bit disconcerting that the electrician, presumably qualified under the tenets of the Electrical Code definitions thereof, apparently did not prosecute to HIS fullest extent the LOTO procedures we all know and love from our own CFR29 1910147 and CFR29 1926.417 in the execution of his work tasking. The electrical trade professionals, no matter what country or jurisdiction in which they ply their trade, should take note that they own a not insignificant portion of the responsibility and liability for such working environmental safety requirements themselves. It is frightening to see that the employer seems to be shouldering the lion's share of the burden when the electrician was clearly not following accepted procedures and protocols when working on live parts in the first place. Please pardon me for being so cold about this, but, as a "qualified" electrician of some 35+ years of carrying the tools in the trade, I would NEVER trust somebody else's word that the circuit on which I was to work is OFF or de-energized unless I did the first, last and in-between testings to make sure the circuit was truly de-energized and I could therefore work on it. Carry one of the myriad pocket voltage detectors and WEAR OUT ITS BATTERY. The annoyance of replacing batteries is far better that this alternative. If it has to be done HOT, there are specific rules of engagement for such work which again appear NOT to have been followed by the unfortunate electrician.

Let it be said, however, that I am HUGELY sorry for the fatality and the unfortunate family members left behind. The paltry sum awarded the family IN NO WAY REPLACES the loved one. This fatality should never have happened, but it did, which is the lesson for ALL electricians AND maintenance mechanics going forward --- FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO FOLLOW -- ALWAYS.