Tree surgery accident in Dorset involving MEWP

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Theres been a discussion going on, on the Arbtalk Facebook page which I have had to get involved in....

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/128622575070/permalink/10152951693610071/

 

The HSE investigated the cause of the accident, but it was concluded in court that that investigation was flawed and far from conclusive.

 

The machine was inspected and deemed faultless, but this inspection was carried out by Promax Access the machine supplier, so was not independent, it was also far from thorough. It was then destroyed before any "thorough" independent inspection could be carried out and before the court case was heard, the machine was clearly vital evidence.

 

The machine was setup on a slope of some 5 degrees which in terms of this machines capability is basically level ground.

 

The ground had not "given" underneath the pad and the machine had been setup correctly and checks had been carried out.

 

According to the statement of the Promax expert witness, this type of machine can "dance around" in other words, the natural flex in the chassis of this machine during normal use, can allow the feet to move.

 

It is also possible that the same scenario could have also happened if the machine had developed the same fault as mine, but because the machine was destroyed, this couldn't be established.

 

I am summizing that, with the lack of an independent tests to eliminate fault on the machine, the judge could only conclude that the machine slipped off the flat pads with the machines "dancing around effect" and that if the pads had been anchored or recessed, this slippage could have been prevented.

 

The newer version of this machine does have pads attached to the legs.

 

Beggars belief!

[kentjames]

Thank you Dean for taking the time to update us with the details.

 

Lots to learn from that, having used ply wood pads in the past for a tow behind hired mewp, it certainly makes me think that investing in some rubber pads would be a far better idea!

 

We could speculate till the cows come home, but destroying the machine before an independent inspection speaks volumes for many i would think!.

[Philip Anderson]

Theres been a discussion going on, on the Arbtalk Facebook page which I have had to get involved in....

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/128622575070/permalink/10152951693610071/

 

The HSE investigated the cause of the accident, but it was concluded in court that that investigation was flawed and far from conclusive.

 

The machine was inspected and deemed faultless, but this inspection was carried out by Promax Access the machine supplier, so was not independent, it was also far from thorough. It was then destroyed before any "thorough" independent inspection could be carried out and before the court case was heard, the machine was clearly vital evidence.

 

The machine was setup on a slope of some 5 degrees which in terms of this machines capability is basically level ground.

 

The ground had not "given" underneath the pad and the machine had been setup correctly and checks had been carried out.

 

According to the statement of the Promax expert witness, this type of machine can "dance around" in other words, the natural flex in the chassis of this machine during normal use, can allow the feet to move.

 

It is also possible that the same scenario could have also happened if the machine had developed the same fault as mine, but because the machine was destroyed, this couldn't be established.

 

I am summizing that, with the lack of an independent tests to eliminate fault on the machine, the judge could only conclude that the machine slipped off the flat pads with the machines "dancing around effect" and that if the pads had been anchored or recessed, this slippage could have been prevented.

 

The newer version of this machine does have pads attached to the legs.

Forgive me Dean but when you say could have developed the same fault as mine what was that fault?

Do you still have yours and trust it?

The Dancing around effect statement sounds quite damming.

I just have a couple of comments really a 5 degree incline / slope is not basically flat or level most large truck mounts have 5 degrees as their max incline, some only 1degree!I know spiders are different but do not have the same counterbalance weight as a truck mount .

I'm also a bit confused over why the firm who hired the machine were found solely responsible surely it would have been in their interest to get it independently inspected and not just by the manufacturers agent and certainly not destroyed.

Also on machine choice was this solely down to the hire company or did the contractor have some liability?

I just ask these questions as a mewp owner operator who hires out as this ruling does have implications for us all of course not anything like the 2 poor chaps involved in this horrible accident.

[monkeybusiness]

Dean, was the machine destroyed after the case was brought but before it was heard, or was the case brought after the machine was destroyed? I could see how it may have legitimately been destroyed following the HSE investigation if there was no sign of a further case being brought at the time.

Also, was the reason for your machine's collapse the same (ie did it move about and slip off its pads)? I thought I heard somewhere of a potential software fault that meant that load sensors didn't kick in before overbalancing in a certain scenario, but I'm not sure if it was in this or your case (or even related to these particular machines).

Whatever the cause it is a horrible accident.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Phillip

 

The machine Chris used did the same as mine, there was no warning signals and the machine did not cut out. I still have mine and still use it, but I don't use it with two people in the basket or in a position where I need to rely on sensors.

 

Without referencing my paper work, these machines are marketed as capable of being used on quite a steep slope of something like 25 degrees and even used on steps.

 

The machine hirer is the first inline to be sued, it is just the way the system works, I felt sorry for him as he was in the same predicament as I ended up. Chris was sued by his passenger in the mew, so Chris has to sue the hirer, then the hirer the supplier and so on.

 

The problem is the hirer has to prove the machine was faulty, but without a machine to do that he is going to find that extremely difficult and it is Promax that supplied the machine to him and carried out the "independent" tests. Whether it was Promax that advised him to scrap the machine or not I don't know but they should have advised him to keep the machine, but doing that would open themselves up to be sued, kind of naughty me thinks.

 

Monkey Business

 

The machine was indeed destroyed after the case was brought and before it was heard, which again stinks of a cover up. I brought the subject up when I was being cross examined, telling the judge I still had my machine and had bought it back of the insurance company from Promax's yard (same company supplied my machine) as evidence and questioned why Chris's machine had been destroyed before the case was heard.

 

Chris's machine went over without sounding alarms or stopping functions the same as mine but obviously as explained, it could not be proved with the machine being destroyed.

 

The case does seem to have implication to hirers of these machines now the case has been ruled on, especially the RQG18. If anyone does have this machine.

 

The video below is the actual video I presented as evidence in the high court, which now the case has been heard I can now allow people to view. The video explains the fault which occurred on my machine and which I suspected occurred on Chris's

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[wood cutter]

Thank you Dean for taking the time to update us with the details.

 

Lots to learn from that, having used ply wood pads in the past for a tow behind hired mewp, it certainly makes me think that investing in some rubber pads would be a far better idea!

 

We could speculate till the cows come home, but destroying the machine before an independent inspection speaks volumes for many i would think!.

 

 

Obviously they had nothing to hide! Fools.

[kimtree]

In Chris's video he say's that this model is not being made anymore.But the same machine is being imported into Australia right now and with no obvious changes to the feet pads at all!

[mendiplogs]

Phillip

 

The machine Chris used did the same as mine, there was no warning signals and the machine did not cut out. I still have mine and still use it, but I don't use it with two people in the basket or in a position where I need to rely on sensors.

 

Without referencing my paper work, these machines are marketed as capable of being used on quite a steep slope of something like 25 degrees and even used on steps.

 

The machine hirer is the first inline to be sued, it is just the way the system works, I felt sorry for him as he was in the same predicament as I ended up. Chris was sued by his passenger in the mew, so Chris has to sue the hirer, then the hirer the supplier and so on.

 

The problem is the hirer has to prove the machine was faulty, but without a machine to do that he is going to find that extremely difficult and it is Promax that supplied the machine to him and carried out the "independent" tests. Whether it was Promax that advised him to scrap the machine or not I don't know but they should have advised him to keep the machine, but doing that would open themselves up to be sued, kind of naughty me thinks.

 

Monkey Business

 

The machine was indeed destroyed after the case was brought and before it was heard, which again stinks of a cover up. I brought the subject up when I was being cross examined, telling the judge I still had my machine and had bought it back of the insurance company from Promax's yard (same company supplied my machine) as evidence and questioned why Chris's machine had been destroyed before the case was heard.

 

Chris's machine went over without sounding alarms or stopping functions the same as mine but obviously as explained, it could not be proved with the machine being destroyed.

 

The case does seem to have implication to hirers of these machines now the case has been ruled on, especially the RQG18. If anyone does have this machine.

 

The video below is the actual video I presented as evidence in the high court, which now the case has been heard I can now allow people to view. The video explains the fault which occurred on my machine and which I suspected occurred on Chris's

 

 

Hi dean good video mate you would not get me going up there in that bit of KIT LOOKS LIKE TOOL LITTIE BITS METAL TRYING TO HOLD ALL WEIGHT NO THANKS NICE ONE DEAN JON

[silky fox]

Extremely interesting and informative video that.

[Dean Lofthouse]

In Chris's video he say's that this model is not being made anymore.But the same machine is being imported into Australia right now and with no obvious changes to the feet pads at all!

 

That is interesting.

 

When I had my accident, I was told Basket, the company who manufacture the machine had ceased trading.

 

I had an idea that the supplier was fobbing me off to try and avoid litigation

 

It may be worth making suppliers in Australia aware of the ruling in the UK ?