Fuel Company liable in Death

DanHolohan

is caused by too-long exposure to heat. You may be mixing this up with hypothermia, which is too-long exposure to cold. The words sound alike.

gary_6

Fuel Company On LI Liable In Death

On page A6 in Newsday today they report an oil company must pay 75K due to a woman's death.

Newsday states the woman died from "prolonged exposure to 110 degree heat"

Then in another paragraph they state she died from hyperthermia.

It appears the flow valve and aquastat was defective causing the heat to keep running.

She signed off on the ticket that the unit was unsafe.

Thoughts??

Keith_8

Liability issue?

Is it safe to assume you are questioning whether or not the oil company should have been held liable?

Did the women refuse to authorize having the repairs performed? Did the tech call into the office to ask what should be done? Some techs in the field might not have the skill set necessary to make this type of judgement call. Make the repairs anyway? Disable the unit? Will the office follow thru and call social services? Will the office back me up if I make the repairs and don't charge the customer? Unfortunatly with the high cost of fuel oil some people are put in a position of making unrealistic choices.

We are supposed to be the professionals. If a unit is unsafe to leave running it should have been disabled. Notify social services if a next of kin is not available.

Unfortunatly most of us have walked into situations where we would question if the homeowner should still be making these decisions and living on their own.

Bottom line...It's a fatal tragedy for the homeowner a tragedy for the next of kin who will second guess if they should have paid closer attention to a family memeber, a tragedy for the tech who will always question how he could have handled it better and a black eye for the company in the community.

My prayers go out to all involved.

Keith

Unknown

only the lawyers

Only the lawyers will win on this public' losing cases

Mitch_6

Unfortunately the code only states

that we cannot put into operation an unsafe piece of equipment gas or oil. The code does not address what we do if things are not safe. If we disable equipment it can be considered vandalism, especially if a second opinion says the situation was not that serious. An example I have run into is high co in very low temps. Ya the boiler was producing high co but it was venting up the chimney not spilling. The second opinion (utility) turned the equipment back on. If the low outside temps froze the house I would have been liable.

I have contacted the authority of jurisdiction on unsafe situations and they have stated they cannot do much.

Mitch S.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

singh

Here's the link.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-liheat165580428feb16,0,1372885.story

Keith C

Let me ask your general opinion here. We have a clause on the back of our service and construction tickets that explicitly grants us authority to disable any equipment that we feel is operating unsafely, for any reason. The customer agrees to not hold us liable for any damages and we agree to not seek payment. The reason we put this in is because of this exact circumstance. Do any of you have something similar? Do you feel as if it is enforceable?

Later

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Derheatmeister

I,ve once was called a Heat Nazi because i Disabled a system that would have killed the occupants. I did not take it personally and told them to call someone else for a second opinion, Which the customer did, the Other company then stud behind me and we then changed the furnace the following week..

Maine Doug_70

Does the customer

sign the back where you have this language? To the effect that "I have read the above statement and agree that you may disable the equipment if you have determined it to be dangerous etc etc"

If it is on the back in fine print and one signs the front and the language is not pointed out or obvious.......

Keith_8

safety

If it's a judgement call why not be on the safe side?

How about...make the repairs if possible and sleep soundly at night? If the unit is condemned and needs to be replaced it should be obvious to any profesional.

Keith

Edward A. (Ed) Carey_3

To g

g,

Who are you and what specifically is your interest in this case???

Ed Carey

Larry in Elkins Park_4

You Guys Have This All Worng!

I just read the article from the link. This is not about you pros! This is a prize example of what's wrong with our legal system, and also a sad commentary on our society where the elderly have more rights than others.
It would seem to a poor uneducated (as in I don't have a J.D) that the only negligent person--and criminally negligent at that--is the social worker.
By the way--since I am not a pro contractor either--even if the aquastat was not cycling the boiler, why wasn't the thermostat shutting this down? Was the thermostat set for 110 degrees??

Derheatmeister

Larry,Yes we did ! after reading the News clip, that was posted after the Orig. post i see wat yu r taking about! That should teach us a lesson: Do not jump to conclusions, or: Do not judge a book by it's Cover!Thank you for that.HM

Edward A. (Ed) Carey_3

Wonder who?

Anyone notice that "g" has disappeared, and never answered my question posted above.

Makes one wonder what "g" was actually looking for.

Ed Carey

gary_6

I didn't disappear, I just don't sit on the PC all day.

Ed Carey I have no interest in this case. I was just a little surprised that you can get hyperthermia and die from a stuck flow valve.

Also I incorrectly assumed that once you advise the customer and they sign off, you can still be held liable.

I guess the customer signing the ticket even if you put they are running at there own risks, won't hold up.

Jim Pompetti

What to do??!!

Several months ago ,we came across a job it was in a apartment building , that each apt was heated by a hot water heater. The place was a mess . PRV leaking ,rusted HWH ,not enough air etc etc. I called the local plumbing inspector , After shutting down the units , He told me to turn them back on . After explaning the dangers of leaving them run he insisted they be relit . I told him to relight them if he wished ,and if anything happened I would testify against him . The local gas authority came . no one wanted to turn the equipment off , but no one would turn them back on. Don't know the outcome , so what do we do when no one has your back.

Keith C

What to do? Just shut it down and walk away. I'd rather be accused of being a jerk who's making up problems or who's being anal about perfection that be accused of being negligent and knowing that somebody is sick or dead. If they don't want me to fix their equipment, that's fine by me. But I'm not walking away knowing that I saw something that I felt was bad and did nothing.

Keith

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Leo_9

Interesting

I find it very interesting how everyone TOLD Jim to turn the units on but when he stood his ground they backed down.

Leo

gasfolk

Deleted

[Deleted. Ed's right.]

Bob Harper_2

failure to warn

The oil company knew there were safety issues yet elected to place the equipment back into operation thus placing the occupants at risk. What risk is determined by the nature of the "unsafe" condition or parts AND they effect. In this case, if the "unsafe" condition referred to was in fact directly related to these parts, then the service company had a duty to warn the homeowner not only that the parts were bad but the hazards of the parts not being replaced and their sequelae. For instance, if the service company had said, "your boiler was placed into operation to get you heat through the night. It MUST be repaired within 24 hrs. or else it will need to be shut down. The reason for this is the aquastat and flow check need replacement. Failure to replace them can result in the boiler providing much more heat than called for. This may result in unhealthy or even unsafe overheating of the living compartment. This high level of heat in the home could present serious health issues especially to the young and old who cannot manage their temperature as well as others. Certain drugs are known to effect the thermoregulatory center in the brain making certain patients more sensitive to temperature swings than others."

Then, the next day, a service manager should have come out, assessed the situation and written a proposal for the repairs. Since a social worker was involved, the service company could ask them to try to find assistance from local charities. If none are available, the service company could still effect the repairs then set the homeowner up on a long term payback or just write it off.

The bottom line is, you do not knowingly leave your customers at risk and you must properly warn them. Then, document what you did and how you warned them.

The service company had the option of providing electric space heaters also to get the homeowner through the night until the unit could be repaired. Oil companies around here do that.

To disable hazardous equipment or not? Always look out for the customer. If someone tries to convince a judge you are a vandal for protecting the occupant from a hazardous condition, good luck. The judge will side with the guy who protects the homeowner. He will nail a contractor who looks out for just himself at the homeowner's expense. The key is knowing when to tag out/ lock out versus just proper notification and documentation. If it is not an immediate threat to health, life or building damage, you probably should not disable it. If it is one of those threats, you'd better disable it.

I'll let ya'll discuss this a bit before I comment more.
Bob

Bruce M

Important Information That is Missing

I believe everyone failed to note that this was an 87 year old woman who was not in complete possesion of her comprehending skills. Asking someone to sign a ticket when that person does not have the ability to comprehend what they are signing is the reason the oil company was held liable. The other point is that this woman had a service contract with this company and they should have fixed it and if it was billable, sent it to a responsible party. Case closed - guilty as charged.

TommyOil_3

Bruce M

Bingo !

Paul Fredricks_5

No Bingo

If the customer doesn't authorize billable repairs, you can't do the work anyway. Unless charity work is what your company is all about. Hard to keep things in the black that way. It is a business don't forget. Yeah, if the repairs are covered, do them.

And I've never heard of an untimely death do to over heating of a heating system. That's a first for me. If it's an option of over heating or freezing, I think I chose the heat. You can always open a window.

And who can determine if the lady is all there or not? As far as I know our techs don't have degrees in psychology. There are so many wacky people on gold coast of CT I can't tell who is nuts, who acts nuts for the possible benefit, or anything else. We also have customers well into their 80's and beyond who really have their act together, or so it seems. Maybe we should assume anyone over a certain age is incapable of making a decision. Soilent Green anyone?

Mark Hunt_4

I read the article

and this is the last paragraf.
On Feb. 10, the caseworker returned and found the house was at 45 degrees, because Kohlhof had shut the boiler with the emergency switch. The caseworker turned the system on, taped the switch open, and told Kohlhof not to touch it, Auerbach said. Kohlhof was found dead the next day.

The caseworker, who did not call Swezey Fuel, was found not to be negligent, Auerbach said.

Wouldn't taping the switch open be considered altering a safety device?

Paul Fredricks_5

Yeah

but that is something we can't do. Not saying the case worker was right, but it's hard to adhere to a code that doesn't pertain to your business and you don't know about. Lots of blame to go around on this one. Bothers me that the oil company was singled out.

TommyOil_3

Allow me to disagree Paul

I know first hand of a similar situation where the mental capacity of the homeowner came into question. She signed a ticket explaining the work done and also the work that needed to be done. Although there was no death involved, the company was held liable to a smaller degree than in this sad case. While I cant explain it, the tech should have known according to the law. Go figure.

Mark Hunt_4

Tommyoil

Does your company offer law courses at work? Mine doesn't.

TommyOil_3

Not sure

I'm getting your point Dave. The instance I referred to happened before I landed where I am. LONG before. That said, I suppose that MY point was that this stuff can and does happen weather we think its right, wrong or whatever. I guess that when this stuff hits the courtroom, its a whole new ball game. Your point (I'm gathering) is that a little legal advice in the workplace would not be a bad idea with regard to what we do (assuming you do anything relative to what I do). An idea that has already been put on the table in my instance, and will be looked into as a very real possibility. More than likely a probability. If I have missed whatever point your trying to make, forgive me. If thats the case, could you elaborate? Thanks in advance.

Mark Hunt_4

Tommyoil

You said that the tech should have known according to the law.
Its in your post. They didn't teach me law in tech school. My boss never covered it and I have just about every book written on HVAC and there is no mention of the law in any of them. So I ask you from one tech to another, where does a tech learn the law? Not code. Law. There is a big diffrence from code to law. The caseworker said it was 45 degrees in the house so she turned the boiler back on. The old lady had turned it off. The caseworker turned it back on and told the old lady not to turn it off. She even put tape over the emergency switch. The same switch that the old lady new enough to turn off when things got bad. The caseworker did not bother to call the heating company. Do you think the old lady told the caseworker that it was getting to hot in her house? That is why she turned off the boiler? But the caseworker did not call the heating company. It says that in the story. She just turned the power on and taped over the switch. Told the old lady not to touch it. The old lady did what she was told and died. Sounds to me like the old lady got to hot before and shut the boiler off. She knew what that switch was for or else she would not have touched it. Caseworker disabled it. A woman died because a piece of tape and a case worker told her not to touch. The oil tech could have done a lot of things. Only way this could have happened was if the boiler had a coil. The thermostat was not having any affect. If it did, the old lady could have turned it down. So the only way to control the heat in this house was with the emergency switch. The same switch that the caseworker modified. The only switch that was controlling the temperature in the house.
Seems to me that this caseworker walked in like a know it all and laid down the law to the poor old lady. The lady died. Tell me what the oil company did to cause this.

Bruce M

What Oil Company Did Not Do

This is not a case of what the oil company did but what it did not do. First of all, the laws are different in all 50 states. You can usually go to any good library and find the law books. In New York State they are all available online. This was not the oil comany's first trip to the house, they had been there before and did not want to do the work because it was a mess. Now here is where the law comes in; a reasonable person should know that there was an amount of mental incapacity of this woman because of the condition of the house. This woman had an oil repair contract with the company. I did not read the contract but most of them cover the aquastat. The question is why wasn't the aquastat replaced. Having this woman sign the ticket does not absolve the company when a reasonable person would know that the woman was not fully capable of understanding what she wrote. The point is that if there are any doubts a call should be made to social services and that call should be documented with date, name and time. It may take a few minutes to do this but that may save days in court and money in liability claims. Every state has different laws.

Paul Fredricks_5

The aquastat was only one problem according to the article. The flow valve was bad as well. That would cause the house to overheat.

A cluttered house is a sign of mental illness? I'm sure my mother in-law, the neat freak, would fell the same. I've been in quite a few houses with boxes stacked to the wall so that all that was left in the living room was a narrow isle way. I don't think any of these people had mental issues.

The one person who was involved that certainly should have seen a problem was the case worker, but that person was absolved.

The facts, man. Just the facts.

Bob Harper

need link

Can someone post a link to this article? I cannot find it on a Google search.

At $75K for a wrongful death, this is not a very strong case. May have been "comparative negligence". A legal summary would put an end to all this speculation including mine.

The main point is to learn from her death. How many of you have held a company meeting to discuss this case? What is your written policy? Do your techs have the devices to tagout and lockout electrical switches and breakers, gas cocks, and fuel oil tanks? What are your procedures when you encounter equipment deemed unsafe to leave in operation thus leaving the building uninhabitable? Is the occupant told to move out until repaired? What about pipes freezing up? You are in the business and run into these issues--what are your policies? How do your techs document a Tag Out/ Lock Out? Who follows up on it? Does the service manager come out to inspect the situation? Do you offer loaner space heaters for overnight heat until it can be repaired the next day? What do you do when you shut them off but they cannot afford to pay? Are there agencies who will assist them with payments? Have you looked? When you encounter someone who has a social worker assigned, what is your policy? Do you notify the case worker in writing as well as the homeowner or their guardian? Do you take pics documenting the problem, your repairs and esp. if tagged out/ locked out?

Plastic tape does not constitute Tagging out and locking out equipment. Also, why was it done at the top of the basement stairs instead of the service disconnect at the appliance?

Each of you should be planning a staff meeting to discuss these issues. Those that do not already have policy manuals are way behind. Those that do need to update them. You should be holding bi-weekly staff meetings anyway for OSHA compliance, general administrative updates and technical in house training. You should also be reviewing all such cases, all callbacks, and all "situations" so everyone is in on the scoop at that address.

This was a special case where a manager should have been involved, probably before this call ever went out. If this equipment was that bad, the oil company could probably locate an agency to pay for new equipment and set her up on a long term payback.

Lots to learn from this case.

Bob

Bruce M

Here is the Link

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-liheat165580428feb16,0,1372885.story

You are absolutely wrong when you say that this was not a very strong case. The amount was low for a wrongful death because the amount of a settlement takes into account the age of the person, their future earning power and their future projected life span. The family of an 87 year old woman would never receive a large amount of money because of the above factors.

TommyOil_3

Dave

Re read my post. I did NOT blame the tech in the instance of the newsday article. The blame was laid on a company (and tech for that matter) in a SEPARATE instance of negligence . While the consequenses were of a much smaller degree that did not involve a death (only damages to property ) the company was found to be LIABLE. THAT was in a court of law. The circumstances were similar in that the customer signed the ticket for the work which DID NOT hold up in that court of LAW. THAT is what I said. THAT is whats in my post. Sorry that you mis interpreted what I was saying. For a non lawyer you seem to know alot about the law. In YOUR post YOU said that the customer died because a piece of tape was placed over the stair switch. You said it. Its in your post. I suggest that you re read the newsday article. The person who placed the tape over the switch was found to be BLAMELESS in a COURT OF LAW. As bizarre as you or I think that is, lawyers and insurance companies see things way different than Dave or Tommy. Thats probably why WE are not lawyers. Maybe if you call the attorney for the defendants and explain your (our) position, they will appeal and call for a new trial based on your expert witness testimony. I give it two chances. Slim and none. But its worth a shot, huh? Keep me posted with the results. I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.