30.05.2008

Common sense reigns

A jury in Washington state took less than a day to throw out a claim against Demag mobile cranes for damages caused after one of its cranes tipped over.

The crane, owned by Sicklesteel Crane of Mount Vernon, was installing scrubbers in 2001 at the Centralia power plant owned by TransAlta when the operator extended the boom on uneven ground with the outriggers raised.

According to court papers the seven axle crane had around 60 metres of boom out and surprise surprise it tipped over crushing two coal conveyors in the process.

TransAlta not only sued Sicklesteel, but also the crane manufacturer Demag saying that its design was inadequate, and Mannesmann Dematic Corp, which had provided the training stating that the training was inferior. Sicklesteel had previously settled out of court, leaving TransAlta to take the other two to court.

In the month-long civil trial Lewis County Superior Court, Calgary-based TransAlta claimed that it had lost $20.4 million as a direct result of the week between February 27th and March 4th 2001, while the conveyors were down, when it had to buy electricity on the open market to meet its long-term contracts.

The lawyers for Demag explained to the jury that the accident simply wouldn’t have happened if the crane had been on flat and level ground, and/or if the outriggers had been out.

They also pointed out that the amount of the claim was grossly overstated and in addition TransAlta could have used a force majeur clause in its supply contracts to have avoided the punitive losses.

Vertikal Comment

It is staggering that this case made it to court, unless there are factors that were not disclosed in the court documents. While the two defendants easily won the case, under American rules they are unlikely to be refunded for their legal costs which will be extensive.

The lawyers working for the two defendants were very clear in pointing the finger at the cranes operator, and it is hard not to draw the same conclusion.
This case highlights two points which cause frustration, one- the gross distortion in the product liability law that permits this sort of case to not only go ahead but occasionally to succeed. And two the fact that an experienced operator – one assumes, working for a good crane rental house takes risks with the outriggers when the boom is extended.

It looks as though in this case justice was done or at least partially done.