Case Synopsis:
The front of a chip spreader was impacted by a Toyota Corolla,
driven by the decedent, resulting in fatal injuries
to the driver of the Corolla. At the time of the incident,
the chip spreader was parked on an asphalt road
with its brakes engaged. The plaintiffs alleged that the collision
between the Corolla and the hydraulically powered chip spreader
damaged the chip spreader propulsion and braking system.
Expert Analysis:
Expert reviewed the repair records, manufacturer's specifications and the hydraulic
schematics. The expert also analyzed and compared damages and repairs (scope & type) to the
hydraulic system designs and operations.
Conclusion:
The expert demonstrated that damages could not
have been caused by collision.
The plaintiff's expert report was inconsistent
with hydraulic schematics.
Key Factors:
(1) Understanding and analyzing hydraulic system schematics.
(2) Comparison of maintenance and repair records over the operating life of the equipment.
(3) Identifying errors in the plaintiff’s expert report.
(4) Preparing a clean, comprehensive report of the findings.
Tomas Cocchiola, PE, CSP:
Mechanical engineering; design engineer of hydraulically
powered machinery and equipment primarily used in trucking, construction, refuse handling
industries and chemical process plant facilities; cranes / forklifts.
Frederic Blum, CFEI, BSME : Engineering investigation and analysis of mechanical
malfunctions, industrial accidents, domestic accidents, as well as product and machinery
evaluation with regard to safety and guarding.
Harris Gross, PE:
Diversified engineering, safety, residential construction, and home
inspection; child / toddler safety with emphasis on the home environment;
equipment, improvement of existing equipment design to improve efficiency and
designing new equipment.
Thomas Cocchiola, PE, CSP
Harris Gross, PE
Frederic Blum, CFEI, BSME
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
1603 Old York Road,Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Carl M. Berkowitz, Ph.D, PE, AICP
Posted by DJS Associates, Inc. at 3:03 PM
Division: Automotive Engineering,
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Platform-to-Railcar Gap Accident
There are numerous trip and fall accidents associated with the gap between the platform
and the railcar. These falls occurs when an object or the nature of the
walking surface prevents or delays the passenger's rear leg from moving forward to achieve a safe footing at the instant the foot makes contact with the surface ahead.
Safe walking requires perfect timing in the transfer of support and balance from one leg to the other, the slightest change can result in an imbalance that can result in a serious fall as the body continues to move forward.
There are two aspects to the platform gap:
the vertical difference between the car floor and platform surface elevation and the horizontal separation of the railcar from the platform.
Today's rail transit equipment uses mechanical and automatic car floor leveling systems to maintain the car floor nearly level with the passenger platform. This is an important safety feature because when the railcar floor is above the platform and it creates a tripping hazard for passengers boarding the vehicle; and when the car floor is below the passenger platform, it is a tripping hazard for passengers exiting the railcar.
Most falls are initially precipitated by a trip
and if the gap is wide enough,
extension of the passenger's leg might fall into the gap space.
Most modern transit systems, with proper design and construction of platforms, together with proper maintenance and proper car floor leveling devices can attain vertical and horizontal gap clearances which make it unlikely that a passenger will trip on the car doorsill or platform, or that a passenger's foot will pass between the car and the platform.
It is clearly recognized by the rail passenger industry
that the gap between a passenger railcar and the
passenger platform is a critical interface where
dangerous passenger falls can occur.
Carl Berkowitz , Ph.D, PE, AICP:
Transportation Education / Safety and Security;
Planning and Administrative Engineering
Carmen Daecher, MSc:
PennDOT Field Issues; Transportation Planning and Safety;
OSHA Regulations
Leo Santowasso, PE, PP, CME:
Transportation Planning and Safety; Municipal
Engineering; Land Surveying
Robert R. Reed, CDS:
Industrial Training Coordination; Terminal Management,
Hazardous Materials Transportation
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Carl M. Berkowitz, Ph.D, PE, AICP
and the railcar. These falls occurs when an object or the nature of the
walking surface prevents or delays the passenger's rear leg from moving forward to achieve a safe footing at the instant the foot makes contact with the surface ahead.
Safe walking requires perfect timing in the transfer of support and balance from one leg to the other, the slightest change can result in an imbalance that can result in a serious fall as the body continues to move forward.
There are two aspects to the platform gap:
the vertical difference between the car floor and platform surface elevation and the horizontal separation of the railcar from the platform.
Today's rail transit equipment uses mechanical and automatic car floor leveling systems to maintain the car floor nearly level with the passenger platform. This is an important safety feature because when the railcar floor is above the platform and it creates a tripping hazard for passengers boarding the vehicle; and when the car floor is below the passenger platform, it is a tripping hazard for passengers exiting the railcar.
Most falls are initially precipitated by a trip
and if the gap is wide enough,
extension of the passenger's leg might fall into the gap space.
Most modern transit systems, with proper design and construction of platforms, together with proper maintenance and proper car floor leveling devices can attain vertical and horizontal gap clearances which make it unlikely that a passenger will trip on the car doorsill or platform, or that a passenger's foot will pass between the car and the platform.
It is clearly recognized by the rail passenger industry
that the gap between a passenger railcar and the
passenger platform is a critical interface where
dangerous passenger falls can occur.
Carl Berkowitz , Ph.D, PE, AICP:
Transportation Education / Safety and Security;
Planning and Administrative Engineering
Carmen Daecher, MSc:
PennDOT Field Issues; Transportation Planning and Safety;
OSHA Regulations
Leo Santowasso, PE, PP, CME:
Transportation Planning and Safety; Municipal
Engineering; Land Surveying
Robert R. Reed, CDS:
Industrial Training Coordination; Terminal Management,
Hazardous Materials Transportation
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Carl M. Berkowitz, Ph.D, PE, AICP
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Athletic Trainers
David G. Yeo, D.P.E. :: Expert Network,
Key Issues:
College athletic trainer was allegedly negligent in the management of an injury to one of his football players. Plaintiff developed an infection, allegedly after suffering an injury.
Expert Analysis:
Upon review of records, as well as examinations and interviews, it was determined that the treatment by the trainer could not have caused the Plaintiff's infection.
Plaintiff dove head first into a mud puddle a few days following initial injury and sustained two large cuts that were never reported to the trainer.
Result:
Trainer provided the proper standard of care in his evaluation and management of the injury. Case against the trainer was dismissed.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Posted byDJS Associates, Inc.
Key Issues:
College athletic trainer was allegedly negligent in the management of an injury to one of his football players. Plaintiff developed an infection, allegedly after suffering an injury.
Expert Analysis:
Upon review of records, as well as examinations and interviews, it was determined that the treatment by the trainer could not have caused the Plaintiff's infection.
Plaintiff dove head first into a mud puddle a few days following initial injury and sustained two large cuts that were never reported to the trainer.
Result:
Trainer provided the proper standard of care in his evaluation and management of the injury. Case against the trainer was dismissed.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Posted byDJS Associates, Inc.
Virtual World: High-Definition Surveying [ HDS ]
Andrew Durian, BSME
A delivery truck approaching a four-way intersection impacted a bicyclist approaching from the street to his right. The truck operator claimed that overgrown bushes that came right up to the edge of pavement blocked his view of the approaching bicyclist.
The collision reconstruction engineer was called in immediately to document the physical evidence. Data was captured using traditional methods of surveying and photography. The importance of the geometry of the bushes and the perishable nature of this data were immediately recognized. For this reason, it was decided to also perform a 3-D laser scan of the area as well, which could be correlated to the other data.
Soon afterward, the bushes were cut back by the owner, but the accurate and detailed 3-D data captured through the laser scan provided documentation of the scene at the time of the accident. At a later time, the reconstruction engineer, from his desk, was able to look at the scene in a 3-D virtual world, as if he were actually there at the time of the accident. This allowed him to evaluate the effect of the bushes as a sight obstruction from virtually
any point of view.
A delivery truck approaching a four-way intersection impacted a bicyclist approaching from the street to his right. The truck operator claimed that overgrown bushes that came right up to the edge of pavement blocked his view of the approaching bicyclist.
The collision reconstruction engineer was called in immediately to document the physical evidence. Data was captured using traditional methods of surveying and photography. The importance of the geometry of the bushes and the perishable nature of this data were immediately recognized. For this reason, it was decided to also perform a 3-D laser scan of the area as well, which could be correlated to the other data.
Soon afterward, the bushes were cut back by the owner, but the accurate and detailed 3-D data captured through the laser scan provided documentation of the scene at the time of the accident. At a later time, the reconstruction engineer, from his desk, was able to look at the scene in a 3-D virtual world, as if he were actually there at the time of the accident. This allowed him to evaluate the effect of the bushes as a sight obstruction from virtually
any point of view.
Tractor-Trailer : Brake Failure
Ronald E. Tomasetti, CDS
Case Synopsis:
While operating a CMV (Commercial Motor Vehicle), the driver entered a steep grade (18%) as he descended down the hill and his brakes failed. The driver of the tractor-trailer tried to slow the vehicle by riding the guiderail. However, the driver lost control when the right front steering tire caught one of the metal posts supporting the guiderail. The tractor-trailer then crossed over into oncoming traffic, striking several vehicles before it came to rest against a bridge support. As a result of the tractor-trailer striking several vehicles, numerous injuries occurred, as well as two deaths.
Expert Analysis:
After reviewing the vehicle maintenance records, driver vehicle inspection report, and deposition transcripts of the driver and maintenance manager, it was discovered that the driver failed to perform a proper pre-trip inspection (didn't check his brakes or do an "Air Leak Test" as required by FMCSA (392.7, 396.11, and 396.13), and the maintenance department had an "UNQUALIFIED" (FMCSA 396.25) mechanic perform the brake repairs the evening before the truck was dispatched.
Results:
The case settled with a substantial settlement against the trucking company and its driver.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
Automotive Engineering
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Posted byDJS Associates, Inc.
Trucking/ Tractor-Trailer
Case Synopsis:
While operating a CMV (Commercial Motor Vehicle), the driver entered a steep grade (18%) as he descended down the hill and his brakes failed. The driver of the tractor-trailer tried to slow the vehicle by riding the guiderail. However, the driver lost control when the right front steering tire caught one of the metal posts supporting the guiderail. The tractor-trailer then crossed over into oncoming traffic, striking several vehicles before it came to rest against a bridge support. As a result of the tractor-trailer striking several vehicles, numerous injuries occurred, as well as two deaths.
Expert Analysis:
After reviewing the vehicle maintenance records, driver vehicle inspection report, and deposition transcripts of the driver and maintenance manager, it was discovered that the driver failed to perform a proper pre-trip inspection (didn't check his brakes or do an "Air Leak Test" as required by FMCSA (392.7, 396.11, and 396.13), and the maintenance department had an "UNQUALIFIED" (FMCSA 396.25) mechanic perform the brake repairs the evening before the truck was dispatched.
Results:
The case settled with a substantial settlement against the trucking company and its driver.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
Automotive Engineering
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Posted byDJS Associates, Inc.
Trucking/ Tractor-Trailer
"Black Box" Data and the Left-Turn Case
Steven M. Schorr, P.E.
Case Description:
A southbound Cadillac Escalade was attempting to turn left at a signal controlled intersection. While executing its left turn, the Cadillac was contacted on the right side by a northbound Ford pick-up truck. The Ford pick-up truck operator testified that as he approached the intersection, the already moving southbound Cadillac suddenly turned left into his path, not providing him with sufficient time or distance to avoid it. The Cadillac operator testified that he was not "already moving," and did not "suddenly turn" into the pick-up truck's path, but rather he was stopped completely at the signal, accelerated normally into his left turn and was struck. The Cadillac operator claimed he was within the intersection for enough time to allow the pick-up truck to easily avoid him.
Expert Analysis:
Both vehicles had airbags and both airbags deployed. The airbag module (The Cadillac's Sensing & Diagnostic Module [SDM] and the Ford's Restraint Control Module [RCM]) were downloaded for each vehicle. The downloaded data indicated that in the five seconds prior to airbag deployment, the Cadillac was decelerating from 30 mph to 15 mph. The SDM showed no indication that the Cadillac was stopped at any time in the 5 seconds prior to impact. The crush data and the RCM download of the Ford indicated change in velocity and "g" forces were consistent with the Ford was not traveling at, or above, the 35 mph speed limit. The SDM and RCM data were then correlated to other available physical evidence, including the damage to both vehicles, the points of rest positions of the vehicles and the point of impact position of the vehicles.
Result:
The SDM ["black box"] data from the Escalade indicated that the Cadillac did not stop prior to entering the intersection and as such, the testimony of the Ford operator, that the left-turning Cadillac was not turning for sufficient time and distance to be avoided was reasonable and credible. Further, the testimony of the Cadillac operator, that he stopped prior to accelerating through the turn, was not credible when compared to the "black box" data and the physical evidence. The RCM data from the Ford and the available physical evidence confirmed that the Ford pickup truck did not exceed the speed limit.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
Automotive Engineering
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Posted by
DJS Associates, Inc.
at 9:43 AM
Division: Automotive Engineering
Case Description:
A southbound Cadillac Escalade was attempting to turn left at a signal controlled intersection. While executing its left turn, the Cadillac was contacted on the right side by a northbound Ford pick-up truck. The Ford pick-up truck operator testified that as he approached the intersection, the already moving southbound Cadillac suddenly turned left into his path, not providing him with sufficient time or distance to avoid it. The Cadillac operator testified that he was not "already moving," and did not "suddenly turn" into the pick-up truck's path, but rather he was stopped completely at the signal, accelerated normally into his left turn and was struck. The Cadillac operator claimed he was within the intersection for enough time to allow the pick-up truck to easily avoid him.
Expert Analysis:
Both vehicles had airbags and both airbags deployed. The airbag module (The Cadillac's Sensing & Diagnostic Module [SDM] and the Ford's Restraint Control Module [RCM]) were downloaded for each vehicle. The downloaded data indicated that in the five seconds prior to airbag deployment, the Cadillac was decelerating from 30 mph to 15 mph. The SDM showed no indication that the Cadillac was stopped at any time in the 5 seconds prior to impact. The crush data and the RCM download of the Ford indicated change in velocity and "g" forces were consistent with the Ford was not traveling at, or above, the 35 mph speed limit. The SDM and RCM data were then correlated to other available physical evidence, including the damage to both vehicles, the points of rest positions of the vehicles and the point of impact position of the vehicles.
Result:
The SDM ["black box"] data from the Escalade indicated that the Cadillac did not stop prior to entering the intersection and as such, the testimony of the Ford operator, that the left-turning Cadillac was not turning for sufficient time and distance to be avoided was reasonable and credible. Further, the testimony of the Cadillac operator, that he stopped prior to accelerating through the turn, was not credible when compared to the "black box" data and the physical evidence. The RCM data from the Ford and the available physical evidence confirmed that the Ford pickup truck did not exceed the speed limit.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
Automotive Engineering
1603 Old York Road,
Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Posted by
DJS Associates, Inc.
at 9:43 AM
Division: Automotive Engineering
Construction Site Accident
Construction Site Accident
Thomas J. Cocchiola, P.E., C.S.P.
Case Synopsis:
A specialty subcontractor furnished sheet piling along with the services of a technical representative for a major road building project. After the sheet piling was delivered, the general contractor asked the technical representative to help set the piling in place. The technical representative was fatally electrocuted while a piece of sheet piling was being lowered into place.
Expert Analysis:
The sheet piling was being handled and set in the ground near an overhead electrical distribution line. The task was being performed after the general contractor shut down the rest of the job site due to inclement weather. The construction manager neglected to inform the local utility company about the sheet piling work. The construction equipment handling the sheet piling accidentally approached one of the energized electrical lines while the technical representative was holding it.
Result:
Engineering analysis and expert testimony demonstrated that the general contractor had violated state safety regulations as well as OSHA requirements regarding work in the vicinity of high voltage lines. A jury decided in favor of the plaintiff's estate.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
Forensic Engineering Services
1603 Old York Road, Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Thomas J. Cocchiola, P.E., C.S.P.
Case Synopsis:
A specialty subcontractor furnished sheet piling along with the services of a technical representative for a major road building project. After the sheet piling was delivered, the general contractor asked the technical representative to help set the piling in place. The technical representative was fatally electrocuted while a piece of sheet piling was being lowered into place.
Expert Analysis:
The sheet piling was being handled and set in the ground near an overhead electrical distribution line. The task was being performed after the general contractor shut down the rest of the job site due to inclement weather. The construction manager neglected to inform the local utility company about the sheet piling work. The construction equipment handling the sheet piling accidentally approached one of the energized electrical lines while the technical representative was holding it.
Result:
Engineering analysis and expert testimony demonstrated that the general contractor had violated state safety regulations as well as OSHA requirements regarding work in the vicinity of high voltage lines. A jury decided in favor of the plaintiff's estate.
DJS Associates, Inc.
http://www.forensicdjs.com
Forensic Engineering Services
1603 Old York Road, Abington, PA 19001
Phone : 215-659-2010
Toll Free: 800-332-6273
Fax: 215-659-7156
experts@forensicdjs.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)