Accident caused by forklift forks left up - GIF

Accident caused by forklift forks left up.

<video controls autoplay loop>
<source src="https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/forklift_forks_left_up_accident.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>


Previously:

https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...133#post141405
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...598#post132598
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...367#post127013
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...226#post126499
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...289#post121698
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...981#post125131

When people in motion collide with stationary objects in plain sight I tend to blame the people and not the inanimate object.

I think this is wrongly titled, accident caused by stupid woman not looking where she is going would be more accurate. to be fair the operator was working at the time and not left it parked, at least she saved her handbag from a nasty fall.

Situational awareness when operating heavy equipment is mandatory. If I operate my equipment such that it could lead to someone being injured then I'm at fault because part of my responsibility is to protect others who aren't as aware. Yes the woman wasn't paying enough attention but operators are required to anticipate that lack of awareness and take protective measures. A common forklift safety practice is to keep the forks as close to the ground as possible and a jury would find that the operator was at fault in that incident because equipment operators are held to a higher standard of safety than the general public.

So many things wrong here. Forklift operator not paying attention is the most distressing part. The forks would have caused trouble even if they were on the ground. The person on the scooter missed the forks that were right near eye level. Rider was hit in the chin but fell back and hit their head. A helmet might have helped but I suspect that person was seriously hurt.

I had been a forklift operator for 15 years, forks ranging from two feet to eighteen feet and never had an injury...

I see a operator playing with his cell phone,and that dear Watson is the start of it all

If you are not lifting or lowering a load your forks must be 4" - 6" off the ground, loaded or not. I don't see a load anywhere in the picture that he might have moved and he certainly isn't about to engage a load. That being said, it's obviously not in the US and there may be not be much of a safety environment in the country where this person works. I guess the thing that strikes me is that he looked up and saw what was about to happen and didn't move a muscle or yell to warn the girl. Just as Crusty said, responsibility falls on the operator, often time even more than people in the area. Also mentioned that there might have been an incident even if he had lowered his forks but likely MUCH less sever outcome. A few bumps as she passed over the forks, maybe wiped out but with time to react to the fall. Being horizontal the forks were probably lined up with something beyond the forklift and therefore invisible to the scooter rider. She would likely also have seen them if they were on the ground.

Primarily, IF HE HAS BEEN TRAINED PROPERLY, the forklift operator is at fault. However, not every company or country has the same standards for equipment training. Where I work, the standard is that forks are never off the ground more than 4" unless absolutely necessary. It makes me cringe to see someone driving through a facility and around corners with their forks at knee level or higher. It is also careless to leave a forklift parked without the forks all the way on the ground.

Beyond, that, the unfortunate girl on the bicycle is as much responsible for the accident as the forklift operator. To begin with, she never should have been riding that close to a manned piece of equipment and she should have been fully aware of where she was going.

The only argument I could make on her case is that often forklift forks are dull and discolored from heavy use and they do often tend to blend in with the background when in a raised position. This girl is not the first person I have seen bump into or trip over forks that were not in the correct position.

Attachment 31943This sign would have helped...

In the US, the phrase "reasonable and prudent" will be the pivotal one in the trial decision in favor of the plaintiff. The operator didn't take "reasonable and prudent" precautions to ensure that even a person passing through the area on roller skates blindfolded, while juggling a butcher knife, a bowling ball and a chainsaw wasn't injured (lowest common denominator). Home Depot understands this so they barricade entire aisles when moving materials because it may prevent injury to brain dead customers and it gives their attorneys something to work with in court.

The operator may be able to shift the liability onto his employer if he wasn't given proper training in the operation of their equipment. The employer in that instance didn't take "reasonable and prudent" precautions to ensure that their equipment was operated safely, leading directly to the accident.

While I agree the operator has an obligation to conduct his machine safely to all in the area, the collective response in so v-e-r-y American, which is to say I am to be protected from my own stupidity. Not many other places so support the stupid litigant, maties.

It is safe to say that both are at fault here the forklift operator for not having his forks on the ground while the lift was parked where as the girl would have ran over them on her little motor scooter which at the speed she was traveling would have launched like the General Lee jumping a bridge with its short wheel base by the time the front wheel had left the ground the rear wheel would have struct the fork with all of the weight firmly planted on the rear wheel it would have bucked with the force of the hind legs of a 3 year old bronc driving the front end back to the ground just beyond the 2nd fork she would have been fighting the handle bars and by this time the rear wheel would have hit the second fork bucking once again only now the front wheel would have been skidding sideways since she would have lost any control that she may have once thought she had the scooter and the girl would wind up in a twisted pile of metal plastic and female flesh but probably not sustaining near as severe an injury as striking face chin or neck first on a solid steel bar.
had the forklift operator seen the girl approaching in time all he would have had to do would to have raised the forks a few more inches and she would have sailed right under never knowing she was in danger.
The girl obviously had no awareness of where she was riding and probably didn't even notice there was a forklift sitting near her path of travel or she would have ridden around to the rear of it. Or maybe she did see it and did not correlate that such a machine has long protrusions sticking out in front of it which may or may not be on the ground or if raised not be high enough to ride under.
People drive into and under things like the backs of Semi trailers every day and never even know they are about to do so.

I see the most fault in the act of stopping a forklift across a pathway with the forks at eye level and then sitting there, oblivious, using a cell phone.

But you're right I do view this through the lens of my local environment and prevalent attitudes, and here we understand that people make mistakes and so we expect each other to take reasonable precautions so that hazards are minimized.

A number of the responses here sound as if they were written by California lawyers. Careless, unobservant, fone-fondling idiots must be protected from themselves so they can live on and further pollute the gene pool.

This is why we live in a society where automobile window sunshades have to, by law, bear a sticker advising the user to remove before driving.

I'm not a lawyer and have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express so I'm no legal authority but I have served on several juries and I've found the round table discussions with the jury after a trial chaired by the judge to be particularly enlightening about the law and the legal system.

In our legal system the scooter rider may not have had a reasonable expectation of obstacles in her path (Was she warned?) and it's also possible that the tines merged with the background from her viewpoint, so she gets the benefit of the doubt and is not the most responsible for the accident.

The operator was clearly negligent but the fact that he had a switched on phone with him while operating the forklift strongly suggests that he wasn't trained in its' safe operation, so he too gets the benefit of the doubt and in the worst case is only partially culpable.

The accident could have been prevented entirely by the forklift owner or lessee providing proper training which included safety measures and operating procedures (no cell phones, erect barricades, keep forks low, pay attention, etc.) which would have satisfied the prudent and reasonable precautions requirement. This viewpoint will be the legally dominant one and the forklift owner or lessee will be the one taking it in the shorts from this accident under the US legal system.

Lawyers spend a lot of time thinking about ways to mold the evidence at hand into a scenario in which they prevail (and get paid) so justice is only an occasional by-product of the legal system. To clarify, I personally think that stupidity should hurt and that fone heads are an infestation.

Anyone driving a motor scooter, especially inside a building, should have a natural "reasonable expectation of obstacles" in his path. Lacking same makes him unfit for operating the vehicle.

I think it's marvelous that all this legal nit-picking over fault always seems to decide that the party with the deepest pockets is most at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

Anyone driving a motor scooter, especially inside a building, should have a natural "reasonable expectation of obstacles" in his path. Lacking same makes him unfit for operating the vehicle.

I think it's marvelous that all this legal nit-picking over fault always seems to decide that the party with the deepest pockets is most at fault.

---

There was a night club fire years ago where the club had been insulated with standard foam rubber, not fire retardant foam. The band used outdoor pyro indoors. Lots died.

Building inspector who passed that foam: No charges.

Owner and band: Liable for what they could get from them.

The company that supplied beer to the club: paid the most.

I talked to one of the people on the fire commission, he said the beer company was found liable because there wasn't enough money in the band and the club owner to pay the victims families. Well, at least he was honest about ripping off the beer company.

Oh, as to the building inspector being found liable? HAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaha

True story from 40 years ago.

A guy was traveling cross country in a Winnebago when a problem developed with his brakes. He pulled into a garage along the way and the mechanic said his front brakes were shot and could be fixed in several days when parts arrived. The driver instructed the mechanic to disconnect the front brakes and rig it so that he could continue on using his rear brakes only. Farther down the road the guy came to a railroad crossing with a moving train in it, couldn't stop in time and rammed into the side of the train, which latched onto his Winnie and dragged it down the tracks where a hundred yards farther there was a phone booth near the tracks with a guy in it using the phone. The dragged Winnie destroyed the phone booth and the guy inside was seriously injured.

Who got sued?

Why AT&T naturally, and they settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Who got sued?

Why AT&T naturally, and they settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.


Somehow the legal logic escapes me on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ibdennyak

Who got sued?

Why AT&T naturally, and they settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.


Somehow the legal logic escapes me on that one.

---

"Legal logic" is a contradiction in terms.

"Legal logic" is a contradiction in terms.

Thank you sir. I agree most whole heartedly. Legal logic has descended to how much can we get paid for this.

After reading the opinions on the forklift vs scooter debacle, I find I had to agree with both sides. Then I realized that every one was trying to fix blame. I decided that the whole thing was more of a social problem....lack of responsibility for one's actions. I guess if I was the judge in that situation, my decision would be to see if the lady needed medical attention, then take away her scooter key. If she rides on a walkway and drives into stationery objects, she shouldn't be scootering. It could have been an innocent pedestrian as well as a forklift.

Then I would take away the forklift drivers key and hand him a broom. It seems more suited to his abilities. Then I would take the forklift and drive over his phone to remove the distraction from his life. I would strongly suggest to the owner of the lift truck to find an operator with a longer attention span or he will be paying for the next accident. I didn't see any deliberate animosity in the situation, so I would call it two idiots meeting at the wrong time.

Being a registered and certified olefart, I have noticed that personal responsibility has gone away in the last 50 years or so. I kind of blame the new method of child rearing. The first generation has grown up and still has the who can I blame mentality. That attitude has fed on itself and gotten worse. For example, I won't say that I never did any dumb things. On the contrary I was notorious for doing stupid stuff, but my parents considered it as survival training. I remember quite vividly being about 4 years old, and being fascinated by how a stove burner would be black, and when you turned a knob it would glow red. Yep, I finally got the courage to touch it.....resulting in four huge blisters, immense pain, and a lot of screaming and crying. My mother informed me that I was a dumb a$$, applied some burn ointment and four band aids. Oddly enough, to this very day. I have not touched another burner without making sure it was off.

Another example.....my parents took me to see a Joey Chitwood demolition derby. I thought the car tricks looked like fun, so I started doing jumps etc with my bicycle. One stunt that fascinated me was the driving through a burning wall stunt. I decided I could do that with my bike, so I got a bunch of lathing and built a wall out of it. Yep, poured some diesel on it, lit it up and rode towards it at top speed. I kind of picture my mother watching me through the window and telling my dad that his kid was a dumb a$$. Anyway, as soon as my front tire penetrated the wall I realized that anything above the handle bars would be demolished by my face. It worked very well....flying debris everywhere....and more excrutiting pain from burning splinters stuck in my face. My dad came out, stomped out the flames and hauled me into the house where my mother picked out the splinters and applied liberal quantities of mercurochrome.....which is supposed to be an old timey disinfectant, but which I think is really iodine with some pain inducing chemicals to make sure you don't forget the latest lesson. Oddly, I have never ridden a bicycle through a burning wall since.

Assuming that my logic is even close, the sad thing is that it would take at least 2 generations to correct. Assuming I am crazy, I will now hide under my chair....let the flames begin.

I was leasing a half acre and a 16,000 sq ft building for my machine and fabrication shop the guy in the building across the lot had a the 28,000 building leased from the same landlord. The landlord calls me up one day and tells me not asked me to sublease the small 1000 sq ft area behind my shop to a friend of his in the soil stabilization business. After meeting the guy I had a sublease contract drawn up by an attorney in the contract the guy was prohibited from storing any large quantity of liquid chemicals on the property without a proper EPA approved containment vessel 5 copies were made up of the agreement 1 to my landlord to sign permitting the sublease 1 for me 1 for my neighbor since he and I shared a common area and 1 to the lease the 5th was for my attorney to file everyone signed all was honkey dory for a while I made a lot of special equipment for the guy my neighbor and I called glowworm then one Friday a used fiberglass 10,000 gallon fuel tank shows up. I ask the guy what he was planning on doing. He said he was going to have a containment berm built and store a caustic soda mixture in it for his soil stabilizing business he even had a signed letter from the land lord stating that it was ok as long as the mixture was within the parameters in accordance of how glowworm's business required it for use.
Monday morning we show up to find a 5000 gallon spill of 90% caustic soda a ruptured tank with one end blown out no containment berm had been built just the tank sitting there as it had been unloaded the previous Friday morning. Richard and I both call the fire department who intern call the EPA glow worm is nowhere to be found all of his equipment is gone I call the landlord who shows up in his limo. He just says I told you not to lease to the guy so deal with it and by the way you have 90 days to vacate Next call is to my attorney My neighbor has a building filled with the stuff as he was down hill and his over 400 coke box refrigeration units that he was in the business of repairing were ruined He and I get a hazmat clean up company to remove the mess which meant hauling off 500 cubic yards of contaminated soil gravel and asphalt. My attorney advised Richard and I that we would be money ahead to just move our businesses rather than try and fight the landlord or glow worm who no one could locate anyway. after the 300,000 dollar clean up and clean EPA bill paid for mostly by Richard and in part by me we escaped the EPA fine only because of the clause I had in the sublease contract and a copy of the letter from the landlord saying it was OK for glowworm to have the 10,000 gallon tank placed on the property. Richard moved his business to his property at his home I bought a 5 acre commercial property with 2 partners a few miles away. in the end the landlord was the biggest looser as the 2 buildings remained empty for 5 years and he was hit with the EPA fine Richard's insurance covered most of his losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

"Legal logic" is a contradiction in terms.

---

Like "Criminal Attorney"...

If criminals are presumed innocent until proven otherwise what does that make the victims presumed to be lying until the suspect is proven guilty, unless it is a case involving harassments or sexual misconduct. Then it always seems to be just the opposite the alleged victim is supposed to be believed without question while the burden of prof to the contrary rest on the accused meaning they are automatically guilty until proven innocent.
And where does the victimless crime come from if there was a crime committed wouldn't there have to be a victim somewhere?

Don't get arrested in Mexico because the Mexican judicial system is governed by Napoleonic Law which states that you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence...

That's why many people hate the US legal system once they understand how it operates. It often makes little sense from the perspective of common folks because it's a system designed by and for lawyers to get paid and justice isn't a required end product. In the story that I mentioned, the operating principle was the "deepest pocket" principle because lawyers' race horses have to be fed.

The fundamental problem is that some system has to be in place for regulation of the affairs of people in a civil society and no one has been able to devise something better that works, but once greed is imposed onto any system corruption ensues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crusty

That's why many people hate the US legal system once they understand how it operates. It often makes little sense from the perspective of common folks because it's a system designed by and for lawyers to get paid and justice isn't a required end product. In the story that I mentioned, the operating principle was the "deepest pocket" principle because lawyers' race horses have to be fed.

The fundamental problem is that some system has to be in place for regulation of the affairs of people in a civil society and no one has been able to devise something better that works, but once greed is imposed onto any system corruption ensues.

---

That is very true. I do believe that justice is for sale, no matter what we are taught. I also believe that greed has infested our entire political system. How ever, I also think that I will have to deal with it until a better system comes along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ibdennyak

That is very true. I do believe that justice is for sale, no matter what we are taught. I also believe that greed has infested our entire political system. How ever, I also think that I will have to deal with it until a better system comes along.

---

One of the reasons why I am glad that I live where I do our county Sherriff try's to consider persons to be sovereign unto themselves whenever possible. Most land owners realize that what they do effects themselves if they misuse their land it will not be productive if they happen to infringe on another's sovereignty the same can happen to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

When people in motion collide with stationary objects in plain sight I tend to blame the people and not the inanimate object.

---

100%. Agreed. What's she doing there, and if she is allowed to be there, what the heck is she looking at? Driver Error.

The lawyer and the dentist win.