Articles Posted in Premise Liability

Late Monday night, the Blue Rhino propane gas-filling plant in Tavares, Florida, was rocked by a series of explosions that seriously injured several of the facility’s workers. According to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, there were no fatalities as a result of the blasts, however, eight of the estimated twenty four to twenty six man crew working an overnight shift at the plant were taken to local hospitals with severe injuries. Of the injured, at least three have been listed in critical condition.

The Blue Rhino plant, located northwest of Orlando, refills the 20-pound propane tanks used in gas grills and had over 53,000 on site at the time of the explosions. There were also three bulk storage tanks holding approximately 30,000 pounds of liquefied propane that were damaged by the blasts but did not explode. The plant passed inspections by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in March and July with no safety violations.

Tavares Fire Chief commented on the cause of the explosions, stating “We don’t think there was any act of sabotage or anything like that. It was probably a human or equipment error.” While there has yet to be any substantial investigation as to the cause of this accident, the initial reports indicate that there may have been some negligence on the part of the company or employees in the operation of the plant.

The injuries of those employees should be covered by workers compensation insurance. However, in the event insurance coverage doesn’t exist, or is insufficient to compensate the victims of this incident for their injury, the parent company of Blue Rhino, Ferrellgas, may be held liable if the plant was operated or managed in a negligent manner. Ferrellgas spokesman Scott Brockelmeyer admitted that Ferrellgas paid a $2,295.00 fine in November of 2011 after an Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection discovered the absence of a component at the end of an air hose, but claimed that the problem was immediately corrected.

There are a number of negligent acts that could have caused this unfortunate accident. Poor design or improper installation of equipment and improper inspection or maintenance of the facility are just a few of the things that could have gone wrong. Ferrellgas owed their employees a duty to discover and take action to prevent dangers that were foreseeable and any failure to do so may result in civil liability.

If you or someone you know has been injured as the result of the dangerous condition caused by the negligent acts of another, it is important that you discuss your situation with a knowledgeable attorney as soon as possible to determine the merit and value of your claim, as well as to preserve any favorable evidence.

Continue reading

Last month, thirty-three people were injured when the deck of North Bay Village waterfront restaurant Shuckers Bar & Grill collapsed while patrons watched Game 4 of the NBA Finals. According to Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Chief Dave Downey, there were more than on hundred people on the deck when it came down, sending dozens into Biscayne Bay. Of the injured individuals, twenty four were transported to local hospitals and two of them were in serious condition.

In late June, the first of what is likely to be several lawsuits against Shuckers was filed by a couple that claims they suffered bodily injury, mental anguish and disfigurement in the accident. According to the complaint filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Shuckers had “a duty to properly maintain its property and to warn of dangerous conditions which it had actual constructive knowledge of” and to take action to remedy those hazardous conditions.

A North Bay Village Building Official indicated that a visual inspection of the deck revealed that the concrete surrounding the steel pilings that supported the deck had degraded. Although the Building Official had approved an inspection of Shuckers in January, the engineer who inspected the building admitted he did not inspect the deck.

On the morning of April 11, seven-year-old Zhanaye Williams and her brother climbed aboard the automatic gate located at the entrance to their Tampa, Florida apartment complex, hoping to pass the time as they awaited their school bus. Suddenly, the gate began to topple, and unable to escape, Zhanaye suffered a crushing and fatal blow to her skull. According to tenants of the complex interviewed for the April 11 edition of the Tampa Bay Times, the enormously heavy gate had been broken for at least four years, and by the time of the fatal accident, it was attached to its frame by only a chain. Earlier this month, attorneys for Zhanaye’s parents filed suit against the apartment complex owner and its management company, seeking damages for Zhanaye’s death, along with damages for infliction of bodily injury and emotional distress on Zhanaye’s brother, who survived the accident and witnessed Zhanaye’s deeply disturbing ordeal.
In this instance, the grossly neglected condition of an automatic gate is the focus of legal action, but property owners have been held accountable for automatic gate-related injuries even in cases in which the care and maintenance of an automated gate have not been challenged. This is because automated entrance gates are potentially very dangerous simply by virtue of their design and function, and as a result, property owners who choose to install them expose anyone entering their property to very well established risks.
Preventable Injuries Continue Despite Safety Standards

The power of automatic gates to cause serious injury and death has been recognized for many years. In March, 2000, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in consultation with Underwriters Laboratories, developed specific standards aimed at reducing the risk of entrapment by automatic gates, basing this effort on documentation of approximately 25,000 gate-related injuries (9,000 of these involving children below the age of 15) during the ten-year period just prior to implementation of the new standards. The standards called for installation of both internal sensors, to reverse gate motion if the sensor directly encounters an object, and external sensors (such as electronic eyes), to reverse gate motion upon remote detection of an obstruction. The Commission also urged that gate controls, such as keypads, be positioned sufficiently far from gates so that users would not have to make contact with a gate while operating its controls.
The promulgation of these standards did not, unfortunately, put an end to maimings and deaths by automatic gates, in Florida or elsewhere. In September, 2000, a Miami woman coming to view a Coconut Grove condominium for possible purchase died from asphyxia after she operated the keypad of the automatic gate to the condo building by reaching through the gate’s bars, and got trapped in the moving gate before she had the chance to retract her arm. Zhanaye Williams’s fatal encounter with an inherently dangerous and poorly maintained automatic gate came over 12 years after gate safety standards were tightened; and less than a month after Zhanaye Williams was killed, a 12-year-old died when he got dragged into a vertical-rising, roll-up-style automatic gate at a Brooklyn, New York apartment complex.

Continue reading