9 ms·

Severely injured worker sues Tesla

64 points by IBM 8y ago

Apocryphon 8y ago
Really flies in the face of Grimes' statements.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  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)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 8y ago
> 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 8y ago
  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.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Natsu 8y ago
    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.
maddyboo 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
setquk 8y ago
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-protection-suit-is-lightweight.html https://www.utilityproducts.com/articles/2012/01/arc-flash-p... 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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      This guy was a trainee.
      - setquk 8y ago
sudhirj 8y ago
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 8y ago
  Aka modern slavery.
  - bencompanion 8y ago
    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.
    - senectus1 8y ago
      its not slavery yet, but its compressing and already uneven playing field so that the lower common denominator is suddenly the only avenue for workers to head to. I worry more about this in the "gig economy" than the impact of AI/Robots on the work force.
    - thraway180306 8y ago
      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.
pdkl95 8y ago
> 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
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > but refused to because the company didn’t want to temporarily stop production. Got to get those numbers up. Tesla in turn tries to pin the blame on the other party by saying they should have followed safety procedures. That's a tricky statement. The contractor probably should have refused to work in that situation and should have warned the safety officer. Even so this should have never happened, I hope the guy at least has some documentation to prove that it was Tesla that overruled them.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  >>> 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.
nwmcsween 8y ago
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.
pmoriarty 8y ago
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
ckastner 8y ago
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 8y ago
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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  Saving humanity? Who is saving humanity..?

64 points by IBM 8y ago

Apocryphon 8y ago

Really flies in the face of Grimes' statements.

King-Aaron 8y ago
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)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Natsu 8y ago

> 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 8y ago
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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 8y ago
  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.

maddyboo 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.

setquk 8y ago

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-protection-suit-is-lightweight.html https://www.utilityproducts.com/articles/2012/01/arc-flash-p... 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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    This guy was a trainee.
    - setquk 8y ago

sudhirj 8y ago

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 8y ago
Aka modern slavery.
- bencompanion 8y ago
  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.
  - senectus1 8y ago
    its not slavery yet, but its compressing and already uneven playing field so that the lower common denominator is suddenly the only avenue for workers to head to. I worry more about this in the "gig economy" than the impact of AI/Robots on the work force.
  - thraway180306 8y ago
    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.

pdkl95 8y ago

> 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

jacquesm 8y ago
> but refused to because the company didn’t want to temporarily stop production. Got to get those numbers up. Tesla in turn tries to pin the blame on the other party by saying they should have followed safety procedures. That's a tricky statement. The contractor probably should have refused to work in that situation and should have warned the safety officer. Even so this should have never happened, I hope the guy at least has some documentation to prove that it was Tesla that overruled them.
sokoloff 8y ago
>>> 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.

nwmcsween 8y ago

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.

pmoriarty 8y ago

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

ckastner 8y ago

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 8y ago

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 8y ago

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 8y ago
Saving humanity? Who is saving humanity..?