Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
105,991Records 70,589Employers 85,836Hospitalizations 27,959Amputations 2015-01-01 2025-11-30

OSHA Accident Investigation · Summary #981423

ELCO ELECTRIC INC.

Event
LIGHTING CIRCUIT, E GI IV, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRIC SWITCH, ELECTRICIAN, ELECTROCUTED, ELECTRICAL WORK, LOCKOUT
NAICS
000000
Inspection type
Accident-driven
Activity number
#107962540
Employer profile
ELCO ELECTRIC INC.
Summary number
981423
Report ID
551800

Event description

ELECTRIC SHOCK - FAILURE OF LOCKOUT SYSTEM

Investigation abstract

AN EMPLOYEE WAS WORKING ALONE, REPLACING AN OLD LAMPPOST. HE WAS KNEELING ON THE E WAS ELECTROCUTED. THE COMPANY HAD NO TRAINING PROGRAM FOR ITS EMPLOYEES. GROUND, PULLING CONDUCTORS FROM THE OLD LAMPPOST, WHICH WAS 15 FEET FROM THE FR ONT OF A HOUSE AND 2 FEET EAST OF THE MAIN WALK. HE HAD TURNED OFF THE SWITCH CO NTROLLING THE LIGHT; HOWEVER, THE NEUTRAL AND UNGROUNDED CIRCUIT CONDUCTOR OF TH E 120-VOLT LIGHTING CIRCUIT WERE REVERSED. THE UNGROUNDED CIRCUIT CONDUCTOR THUS REMAINED ENERGIZED AS THE EMPLOYEE WAS WORKING. ADDITIONALLY, THE EMPLOYEE WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TYPE OF WIRING USED FOR THE LIGHTING CIRCUIT (WHICH THE RE PORT REFERRED TO AS KNOB AND TUBE WIRING). AS HE WAS REMOVING THE CONDUIT AND TH E CONDUCTORS, THE ENERGIZED CIRCUIT CONDUCTOR CONTACTED THE CONDUIT. THE EMPLOYE

Victim

  1. #1 Fatality Age 25 Male

    Nature of injury
    Electric Shock (10)
    Part of body
    MULTIPLE (19)
    Accident type
    SHOCK (13)
    Source of injury
    ELEC APPARAT/WIRING (15)
    Occupation
    Electricians (575)
    Human factor
    MISJUDGMENT, HAZ. SITUATION (1)
    Environmental factor
    OTHER (18)
    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.