Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., is seeking cases involving accidents involving vertical personnel carriers, also known as "manlifts," which are frequently used at industrial sites in place of traditional elevators.
Manlifts are vertical conveyor belts with small platforms on which workers stand to move between floors. Because manlifts can run continuously and transport workers up and down simultaneously, they operate more efficiently than traditional elevators. However, because the personnel platforms are not enclosed and secure workers only by handholds on the belt, they pose safety dangers.
Thus, OSHA regulations and industry codes provide specific safety requirements for manlift operations. They also require detailed monthly safety inspections, which are often contracted out to firms specializing in manlift installation, maintenance and repair. Failure to comply with the federal and industry requirements, or failure to adequately inspect a manlift, can strengthen third-party claims of negligence that avoid workers' compensation damage limitations.
A recent manlift case arising out of an oil refinery in El Dorado, Kan., illustrates such third-party claims.
Plaintiff Kyle Lockamy and several coworkers at Frontier Oil Corporation's El Dorado refinery northeast of Wichita, Kan., were descending a manlift when the personnel carrier began to freewheel. As a result, Mr. Lockamy fell four floors to the base of the carrier. The carrier platform immediately above Mr. Lockamy then slammed onto his left shoulder and back, breaking his left humerus and clavicle, and damaging his shoulder.
The defendant, BarnesCo, Inc., is based in Arkansas City, Kan., and performs safety inspections and maintenance services to manlift owners throughout the Midwest. After Mr. Lockamy collected workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Scott Nutter and David Morantz pursued a third-party claim against BarnesCo based on repair work and on a monthly safety inspection BarnesCo had performed shortly before the accident occurred.
Evidence developed during discovery revealed that BarnesCo had improperly repaired the manlift's power train and had indicated during a safety inspection four days before the accident that a safety key that would have prevented the manlift from freewheeling was present. Investigators never found the safety key.
BarnesCo based their defense in part by claiming that prior to the accident they had recommended that the oil refinery's owner install a safety brake, which could have prevented the accident. Faced with a possible assessment of comparative fault against the refinery's owner, which would have reduced Mr. Lockamy's recovery, and with the fact that Mr. Lockamy returned to work within months of the accident and continues to work at the refinery, the parties settled the matter for $500,000.00.
Because manlift accidents frequently result in workers' compensation claims, attorneys handling such claims should investigate whether negligence by maintenance or inspection firms might have contributed to the accident.
