Barge Fatality

The expert was hired by the defendant, an operator of a maritime barge company, after an experienced dock worker drove a Bobcat sweeper backwards through/over a safety barrier around the edge of the barge he had been working on into the ocean and drowned. As the worker had been working alone, the investigation was not particularly detailed and concluded that the operator had been "too involved" in his work to notice where he was and when going backwards at full speed, had gone through / over the safety barrier before he could stop and then plunged into the ocean and drowned.

The expert conducted a physical examination of the Bobcat, barge, safety barrier; observed how the Bobcat was used on the barge and its performance abilities; conducted interviews and reviewed the witness and investigator statements and evidence. It was determined that :

1. At the time of the accident, the only work to be done was at the far forward bow area
2. The gangway from the dock to the barge was at the bow end of the barge near the actual work area
3. Sweeping was being done at low speeds
4. Less than five minutes before the accident the deceased worker was working in the bow of the barge, about 280 feet from the point on the stern where he went through / over the safety barrier and into the ocean and drowned
5. At this time, the worker had been told by the on-site supervisor to stay only in the far forward bow area and complete the sweeping work needed there. After giving these instructions the supervisor went to the work shack on the dock, some 50 feet away to answer the telephone and was absent for less than five minutes. When he returned, the worker had already gone over the safety barrier into the water
6. Study of the Bobcat loader indicated that travel speed was controlled by a (strong) spring tension throttle that required a strong and sustained twisting force to allow movement. Release of the throttle resulted in the vehicle stopping in a very short distance, even at full speed on wood and metal surfaces. The load bearing area of the barge he was cleaning was primarily rough surface wood
7. At the time of the accident, it was summertime, in late afternoon, the weather had been dry for several days and the barge deck was dry
8. Evaluation of the safety warning and restraint system found it to be a ¼” steel cable strung between steel posts. The cable height was about 36” and posts were about 10’ apart. From what evidence was available, the formal investigation concluded that the Bobcat had gone over the barrier near a post at full speed, bending the post, and possibly climbing up it
9. Examination of the barge and deck area revealed that there was five foot wide walkway around the deck loading area, with the walkway between the deck and the safety barrier. The walkway was about 12” below the main level of the deck. In addition, there was a 3” high metal curb (3” wide, 3” high) around the deck at the edge of the walkway, creating a drop of 15” to the walkway
10. Simulation of the stopping time with a 15” drop with the Bobcat going at full speed backwards on metal and on wood indicated that the Bobcat could stop in less than five feet and that the 15” drop was sufficient to startle most people and cause release of the throttle from a startle response - particularly as the Bobcat was going backwards.

The expert then used a fault tree analysis method to try and resolve the various problems in the evidence and he fault tree evaluation indicated that it was highly unlikely that the worker was distracted, as the worker was some 280’ away from the worksite, in an area not needing sweeping and that the 15” drop to the walkway should have alerted him to his proximity to the edge and most likely caused him to have a startle reaction and release the spring loaded throttle. It was also doubtful that the worker had been knocked unconscious by the 15” drop to the deck (hitting their head on the safety cage) as this could also cause loosening of the hand on the throttle and there was no clear evidence of injury to the head as he was apparently wearing a bump cap at the time of the accident.

This analysis was able to eliminate all reasonable sources for the accident leaving only suicide or operator incapacity due to medical reasons as the most probable sources. Suicide was considered to not be a likely alternative, leaving only operator incapacitation due to medical conditions as a potential source. It was found that the worker had a history of high blood pressure and heart problems as well as other related medical conditions and was taking a variety of prescription drugs for control of these problems. It was also found that the worker had recently modified his prescriptions. When presented with the expert’s findings to date, further studies of the deceased or related medical conditions were not allowed by the deceased family and the matter was settled in mediation.

To see the resume of the expert associated with this case study, see the link below.