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. Dan Lawrence PE
|