OSHA Accident Investigation · Summary #14307482
WARREN C. GODUSKY ROOFING
ALLENTOWN, PA·
Event description
ELECTRIC SHOCK - CONTACT WITH OVERHEAD LINE THRU HOIST
Investigation abstract
TWO EMPLOYEES OF A ROOFING CONTRACTOR WERE RAISING A PORTABLE ALUMINUM HOIST BET HE HAD THE FOURTH AND FIFTH TOES BURNED OFF OF HIS RIGHT FOOT. HE WAS HOSPITALIZ ED FOR HIS INJURIES. WEEN THE HOUSE THEY WERE WORKING ON AND A 7200-VOLT OVERHEAD POWER LINE. THE 27- FOOT, 6-INCH-LONG HOIST WAS MADE OF THREE 9-FOOT SECTIONS BOLTED TOGETHER, AND I T HAD ADJUSTABLE FEET. THE OVERHEAD POWER LINE WAS 26 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND AND 13 FEET FROM THE WALL OF THE HOUSE. AS THE EMPLOYEES RAISED THE HOIST TO A NEAR VERTICAL POSITION, IT FELL INTO THE POWER LINE. (BURN MARKS WERE FOUND ON THE SI DE RAIL OF THE HOIST, ABOUT 13 INCHES FROM THE TOP.) ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES, WHO W AS PUSHING THE HOIST, WAS ELECTROCUTED. THE OTHER EMPLOYEE, WHO WAS HOLDING THE BOTTOM SECTION, RECEIVED BURNS TO BOTH HANDS AND A BURN TO HIS LEFT TEMPLE, AND
Victims (2)
-
#1 Fatality Age 25 Male
- Nature of injury
- Electric Shock (10)
- Part of body
- BODYSYSTEM (4)
- Accident type
- SHOCK (13)
- Source of injury
- ELEC APPARAT/WIRING (15)
- Occupation
- Roofers (595)
- Human factor
- MISJUDGMENT, HAZ. SITUATION (1)
- Environmental factor
- MATERIALS HANDLG EQUIP./METHOD (8)
- Task assigned
- Task regularly assigned (1)
-
#2 Hospitalized Age 29 Male
- Nature of injury
- Hernia (16)
- Part of body
- FOOT/ANKLE (11)
- Accident type
- SHOCK (13)
- Source of injury
- ELEC APPARAT/WIRING (15)
- Occupation
- Roofers (595)
- Human factor
- MISJUDGMENT, HAZ. SITUATION (1)
- Environmental factor
- MATERIALS HANDLG EQUIP./METHOD (8)
- Task assigned
- Task regularly assigned (1)
Labels are OSHA's own, from the code dictionary published with the accident-investigation file. The raw code is shown beside each one so this page can be reconciled against OSHA's bulk data. OSHA notes that nature of injury, part of body, source of injury and accident type in this file are not coded to the Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System, and that the occupation titles are not standardised — so these values are not directly comparable with the OIICS-coded severe injury reports.