
Severely injured worker sues Tesla - IBM
https://www.revealnews.org/blog/im-not-who-i-used-to-be-severely-injured-worker-sues-tesla/
======
pmoriarty
This reminds me of a scene from Jack London's _The Iron Heel_ [1]:

 _" He lost his arm in the Sierra Mills, and like a broken-down horse you
turned him out on the highway to die. When I say 'you,' I mean the
superintendent and the officials that you and the other stockholders pay to
manage the mills for you. It was an accident. It was caused by his trying to
save the company a few dollars. The toothed drum of the picker caught his arm.
He might have let the small flint that he saw in the teeth go through. It
would have smashed out a double row of spikes. But he reached for the flint,
and his arm was picked and clawed to shreds from the finger tips to the
shoulder. It was at night. The mills were working overtime. They paid a fat
dividend that quarter. Jackson had been working many hours, and his muscles
had lost their resiliency and snap. They made his movements a bit slow. That
was why the machine caught him. He had a wife and three children."_

 _" And what did the company do for him?" I asked._

 _" Nothing. Oh, yes, they did do something. They successfully fought the
damage suit he brought when he came out of hospital. The company employs very
efficient lawyers, you know."_

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Heel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Heel)

------
pdkl95
> an arc flash threw him back 15 to 20 feet

That requires significant amounts of energy.

> Tesla should have cut electricity to the equipment he was working on, but
> refused to because the company didn’t want to temporarily stop production.

Umm, WTF? That's insane at mains-level voltages. Sending someone into a live
high voltage system is the kind of behavior that might justify charges for
gross negligence or even _attempted-murder_. There is no way they didn't know
this would be incredibly dangerous.

> install dozens of “supercharger” stations where electric vehicles can fuel
> up

That suggests a _lot_ of power in a device designed to move that power quickly
at high current. That's the kind of hazard that should require specific
training and special handling procedures.

> Cal/OSHA also cited Mark III for not providing “a suitable barrier to
> prevent accidental contact with energized parts.”

Given the damage, this sounds like a "barrier to prevent accidental contact"
wouldn't have offered much protection. This sounds more like a "only touch it
with a long non-conductive poll" level electrical hazard.

\--

I suggest watching this[1] video that someone posted recently to a different
"electrical hazard" story that discusses the dangers if working near high
voltages.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfnEuRA7-vo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfnEuRA7-vo)

~~~
sokoloff
>>> Tesla should have cut electricity to the equipment he was working on, but
refused to because the company didn’t want to temporarily stop production.

>Umm, WTF? That's insane at mains-level voltages.

At mains-level (240V and below), working on live systems is fairly commonly
done. I've taken 120VAC hits dozens of times and 240VAC a few times. It's not
comfortable (and has an outside chance to be fatal, but _extremely^2_ rarely
is) and I try to disconnect power prior to working on something, but sometimes
that's not possible (such as troubleshooting power supply components or other
PCB work that needs to be done hot).

The most uncomfortable I've been at work was supervising (as a customer) a UPS
commissioning and testing when the contracted electricians were making the
480V/3 connections on live circuits to cutover to the new feeds. To us, we
didn't need the load carried live; the servers and other equipment was on only
to provide a representative load for commissioning testing and phase
balancing.

Electricians didn't want to wait for us to shut everything down to take the
last step (even though they were no doubt making time-and-a-half on a Saturday
afternoon), so they decided to cutover live-live. They acted like they did it
all the time. Seemed insane to me, but that's still a modest voltage and from
subsequent inquiry, this is apparently very common.

Agreed that actual high-voltage systems are different from mains-level, of
course.

~~~
eigenvector
We need to distinguish between shock hazards, which are proportional to
voltage level in terms of the proximity required to cause a shock, and arc
flash hazards which are proportional to the available current and the speed of
the nearest upstream protection device.

Low voltage systems are often much more dangerous for arc flash than high
voltage ones: the current is often higher (thousands of amps instead of tens
of amps) and the protective devices (circuit breakers or even fuses) are
slower. That means the amount of hazardous energy discharged into a worker
before the circuit is automatically isolated can easily be enough to maim or
kill even at relatively low voltages such as 120V. There's a 208V transfer
switch in one substation I work at that has potential arc flash incident
energy of 38 cal/cm^2. That's more than enough to kill even from 2 metres
away.

At 480 or 690V it is sufficient to simply not touch energized equipment to
avoid being shocked, and PPE is available that allows hand-contact (class 0
gloves). However, available arc-flash energy in the event of a fault while the
energized equipment is exposed can easily be above the level that any PPE can
protect from (usually considered to be 40 cal/cm^2). If the arc flash hazard
is at a level that cannot be mitigated with PPE, it will have to be reduced in
some fashion either by re-configuring the circuit or de-energizing it before
work can be done.

Employers are responsible for performing engineering studies to determine the
arc flash hazard level at every relevant location in their facility, labeling
it appropriately, training employees on these hazards and providing adequate
PPE. Unlike voltage, you can't just look at something and tell how much arc
flash potential it has which is why engineering studies need to be done in
advance. We have widely-accepted standards such as NFPA 70E and IEEE 1584 that
codify the appropriate methods for engineers to use in estimating these
hazards, and there's no excuse for failing to do that.

------
sudhirj
This is almost exactly the same kind of headline as Apple being blamed for the
Foxconn suicides or injuries. The sub-contracting relationship exists for a
reason. The actual employer in question takes on liability for their
employees, and saying that Tesla wanted work done quickly is zero excuse.
Tesla wanted exactly what was in the contract, and Mark III was trying to give
them what they charged for.

If I go to a restaurant that offers 30 minutes or free service, you cannot
possibly drag me into it if the cooks cut safety corners because the
restaurant is docking their pay for late service while overcrowding the
tables.

~~~
pjmlp
Aka modern slavery.

~~~
bencompanion
It's not slavery. As the sub-contractor, it's your responsibility to contract
to provide services under conditions that are safe and sustainable. In the
restaurant example, don't offer a 30 minute service guarantee if you can't
achieve it safely, or, know that on occasion you're going to have to pay out
when you fail.

The sucky bit is being the employee of the scummy sub-contractor who promises
more than they can deliver, and expects their staff to do bullshit like this
to make it up.

~~~
thraway180306
So what you say is either the contractor has to subsidize the restaurant, or
coerce employees to do it. Gee, wonder what business contractors are in.

Another question is what business the “restaurant” that can't even hire the
cooks is in.

~~~
thecatspaw
they are saying the contractor should not have accepted the offer, since they
cannot fullfill what is asked of them without cutting safety.

~~~
pjmlp
That is so easy to say on an online forum, depending on where one is living
and people that depend on their income, it isn't always a clear option.

~~~
bshacklett
In this case it is a contracting company, not an individual being hired on as
a "contractor", who is said to have taken a contract that they could not
reasonably fulfill. That is a much less ambiguous situation, and one that
seems to be running rampant in businesses these days.

------
setquk
If there was an arc flash risk he should have been wearing appropriate PPE.
Arc flash is something you don’t argue with. It burns and blinds you almost
instantly and fires vaporised metal into your torso potentially killing you.

I’d like to understand the policy and procedures and equipment that was
available first. A lot of electrical engineers refuse to use the PPE aware of
the risks because it’s uncomfortable and takes time to put on.

Here’s typical PPE for that event to give you an idea the dangers involved:
[https://www.utilityproducts.com/articles/2012/01/arc-
flash-p...](https://www.utilityproducts.com/articles/2012/01/arc-flash-
protection-suit-is-lightweight.html)

From his injuries it was clear he was not using it. Possibly just a flash
visor looking at the lack of direct facial injuries and that was it.

~~~
madaxe_again
He wasn’t. From TFA, his employer, MkIII construction, was fined, as he wasn’t
trained or qualified to work on energised kit either.

I’ll be honest, I’m struggling to see how this is tesla’s fault.

If I hire an electrician to do wiring at home, and they send along some guy
who isn’t trained, and he then electrifies himself through negligence - should
I be sued by him? What could I have done differently?

~~~
setquk
Yep. In that case Tesla shouldn’t even be mentioned in this. It just makes a
good headline.

I’m perpetually surprised at how crap even supposedly trained electricians
are. At best they don’t understand the consequences of not doing something
properly. Even domestic electricians I’ve hired, because I’m not allowed to
certify the work myself here in the UK, I’ve had to correct their work when
they have gone.

~~~
haldean
This guy was a trainee.

~~~
setquk
Whoever trained him or was responsible for him is liable then.

------
nwmcsween
The way most safety regulations work is based on due diligence, did Tesla do
what a _responsible_ company would do? Did they review training from
contractors, do an investigation and come up with a solution to the issue?
From solely the article it seems like they didn't and someone in the chain of
command needs to realize how safety works.

------
maddyboo
Safety is a HUGE problem in all industrial workplaces.

Employers always have "extensive protocols" in place, but managers and workers
are often pressured to work in unsafe conditions in order to meet their
performance goals.

For example, it's very common for workers to avoid donning PPE or properly
setting up safety equipment for "simple" yet risky tasks such as routine
cleaning of powerful equipment.

It's one of the "would you jump off a bridge just because everyone else did
it?" type things, but complacency and peer pressure are real things.

There is always a battle between productivity and safety.

~~~
dannyw
It’s a case of “would you work near the edges of a bridge, because everyone
else did it?” There’s almost an implicit assumption it’s safe if everyone else
is doing it with no issues.

------
Natsu
> Safety officials cited Mark III Construction – and not Tesla – with
> violations following the accident. However, Nguyen’s suit states that Tesla
> “controlled” the contractor and safety on the worksite.

Seems like a bad contractor ignored safety and now they're blaming Tesla. It
will be interesting to see who the court finds responsible here.

~~~
toomanybeersies
I'm not sure how it works in the USA, but I'm fairly sure that the way it
works where I'm from is that the Tesla should be at fault too, because it
happened on their worksite.

~~~
Natsu
It will likely depend on a lot of complex legal factors, including what Tesla
knew or should have known.

I expect the contractor would pretty clearly be on the hook here, though, both
to this man and to Tesla. Sending an untrained man with no safety gear into a
situation like that is absurd.

------
ckastner
With regards to Tesla's liability, I don't see what difference it should make
whether Tesla or Mark III Construction is to blame for the accident. "I
employed a negligent subcontractor" isn't really much of a legal defense.

------
throwawy9879
Supposedly, Tesla cars are marketed for the ethically minded consumers. I just
can't understand how in the hell people are chill with Tesla's safety policies
after all the accident reports and former worker's claiming being overworked
to death. Some think that this accident is totally not Tesla's fault because
the worker was working for some contractor. This is definitely not ok. Their
accident numbers are way above the car manufacturing norms and they are
playing the numbers game by under-reporting the accidents.

I think one of the main reasons Tesla is given a pass is because the strong
cult of personality around Elon Musk, a modern day slaver in a nice suit. Sure
he can go ahead and save the world by his eco-friendly cars, save the ultra-
rich by building a Mars settlement, but at what cost?

------
whoisthemachine
If human life is sacrificed unnecessarily in your quest to save humanity, then
what is the point?

Or put another way, let's not lose our humanity while saving humanity.

~~~
buvanshak
Saving humanity? Who is saving humanity..?

------
Apocryphon
Really flies in the face of Grimes' statements.

~~~
King-Aaron
Could you please share a link/quote? I'm not across what Grimes has said about
this (although surprised that her commenting has much to do with anything -
even if she's dating Musk... She's not exactly an industrial OH&S expert from
my understanding)

