This article was posted 04/27/2011 and is most likely outdated.

Inquest into the Death of Stephen Cuthbertson
 

 


Subject -
Inquest into the Death of Stephen Cuthbertson

April 27, 2011
This newsletter was sent to 17008 newsletter subscribers

Ask a Question |  Continuing EducationQuizzes |  Free Stuff Instructors Products | Seminars | SubscribeUnsubscribe
[ image1 Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]  

Inquest into Death of Stephen Cuthbertson - Recommendations made July 2010

Toronto, Canada: Mr. Cuthbertson, 27, died on October 3, 2007, from injuries received during the course of his employment at a construction site in Toronto. An inquest is mandatory under the Coroners Act.
Image1
Summary of the Circumstances of the Death:
Mr. Cuthbertson was employed as an electrical apprentice on a worksite with other electricians.  While he was working on setting up temporary lighting for one of the floors he was electrocuted during the connection process to an electrical panel.  His death occurred on October 3, 2007.  As his death occurred from injuries sustained while at a construction site his death met the criteria for a mandatory inquest as dictated by Section 10(5) of the Coroners Act.

The inquest was heard between July 26th – July 28th, 20010 in Toronto Ontario.  It was determined through evidence that while attempting to connect the temporary lighting to the panel the panel was still receiving power (“working live”).  The policy of the worksite was to connect the wiring to the panel but that work was not to be done without shutting down power t the panel.  This process was known as lock out/tag out.  All lock out/tag out events had to be scheduled beforehand to alert all trades o the worksite of power outages.  This process was not done on the day of Mr. Cuthbertson’s death although all the involved parties were aware that the connection to the electrical panel was planned for that day.

Representative from the Ministry of Labour reviewed the fact that the work on that day should not have been carried out “live” and the lock out/tag out policy should have been followed.  They also reviewed sections of the Occupational and Safety Act that state that the responsibility for training, supervision and instruction falls on the employer or in this case the contractor.  The contractor is the company hired to do the construction.  The Act does not list any obligations for unions or school’s to carry out in their daily operations.

While hearing testimony from the witnesses the inquest there were ten sets of exhibits entered into evidence for the jury to consider.  There exhibits included pictures of the construction site, the electrical panel and control room, work orders, safety manual and presentation for the worksite, and the post-mortem and toxicology report.  While reviewing the witness testimony and exhibits the training and safety procedure of the electricians was reviewed.  This included the training provided to apprentice electricians such as Stephen Cuthbertson.

Evidence was presented that Mr. Cuthbertson died of the electrical injuries incurred during the process of trying to connect the wiring.  The autopsy report results documenting his cause of death was reviewed by the Crown and accepted by all the parties with standing.  Mr. Cuthbertson was pronounced dead at St. Michael’s Hospital after resuscitation procedures by Emergency Personnel proved to be unsuccessful.
After the witnesses completed their testimony and all the exhibits were entered the jury deliberated for several hours and made six recommendations to help prevent future deaths of a similar nature.

Recommendations:
1. The Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities (MTCU), shall ensure that apprentice electricians receive training in the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) as related to their work
Coroner's Comments:
Evidence was provided to the jury that although there was no requirement of the school's to provide electrical apprentices with direct knowledge of the OHSA, the requirements regarding safety, lock out/tag out procedures, and the responsibilities of constructors were outlined in this act.

2. The MTCU shall renew licences to Journeymen Electricians only if they demonstrate completion of a MTCU approved course on the OH&SA.
Coroner's Comments:
The jury was presented with the evidence that there was also no requirement of licence renewal that required knowledge of the OHSA. This included the same requirements listed in recommendation one regarding safety, lock out/tag out procedures and constructor responsibilities.

3. The general contractor or constructor is responsible to ensure all apprentice and Journeymen Electricians are appropriately trained in the OHSA as outlined by the MTCU,
Coroner's Comments:
The jury was informed that a constructor's hiring policies was not required to document previous training of an electrician. This recommendation is proposed in conjunction with the first two recommendations to ensure adequate knowledge of the OHSA, safety and the rights and responsibilities of the individual electrician or electrical apprentice.

4. The general contractor or constructor is to provide site-specific and work-specific safety instructions and implement a process to obtain acknowledgement that all safety requirements including Job Hazard
Analyses as set out in the general contractor policy, have been executed/implemented as required.
Coroner's Comments:
During this inquest the jury heard testimony regarding the constructor's responsibility in providing site-specific safety training. A formal method of documenting that the constructor has carried out appropriate safety analyses, and trained the appropriate personnel was recommended.

5. The general contractor or constructor shall install locks on all temporary power panels and the key(s) shall be controlled by a general contractor supervisor(s) who has the ability to-control, plan and or schedule power outages. All power outages will be scheduled and enforced by the general contractor according to an established procedure as documented in the general contractor site-specific protocols.
Coroner's Comments:
During the inquest testimony was given that anyone could have accessed the panels that provided energy to the workers on the worksite. The electrical room supplying the separate panels was the only one that was locked. By locking the panel and limiting access it would provide another layer of protection in allowing any worker from working with live electrical equipment. This could also ensure that the appropriate lock out/tag out procedures were being followed as documented in the site specific safety manual.

6. The Constructions Association, Electrical Safety Authority (ESA), representatives of labour management and other relevant parties shall establish a working committee to Identify what qualifications a Journeyman Electrician must possess in order to supervise, train or mentor an apprentice.
Coroner's Comments:
Testimony was given that Journeymen electricians that supervised the electrical apprentices were not required to have a predetermined set of abilities knowledge requirements or documented teaching abilities. The goal of this recommendation is to try and bring some standard of training to all apprentices regardless of their supervisor.

This incident is explained in more detail in the 2009 Ontario Electrical Safety Report, on page 29.

 

Click here to post a comment

[ Post Your Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]
[ View More Newsletters ]

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be
displayed or published on the internet without the prior written permission of Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

http://www.MikeHolt.com     1-888-NEC-CODE (1-888-632-2633)

 

 
Comments
  • I think most of the comments miss the point that this was not an ordinary panel, but a cabinet with a live transformer at the bottom.

    Note that in most panels the depth is limited to about 6", that bare busses and lugs are only in the back of the panel, and that panels are set up to be worked on while standing. In this accident, the apprentice reached past the live lugs of a transformer, in a kneeling position.

    I am not opposed to reasonable safety precautions, but I have seen safety people react with rules that create more problems. Imagine if a whole construction site had to be shut down to land one branch circuit!

    D Bailey  May 3 2011, 12:40 pm EDT
    Reply to this comment
  • Reply from: Gary Meerschaert   May 3 2011, 5:11 pm EDT
    Imagine if they would have done just that, scheduled the shut down, maybe irritating but one apprentice would still be alive.
    Reply to Gary Meerschaert

    Reply from: Alan Cassidy   May 3 2011, 5:17 pm EDT
    Yes,just imagine that. The site would have been without lighting and power for 15 minutes and this guy would still be alive. A scheduled shut down could have been called for and everybody would have been ready and if it was a large site only a section of would have been affected.
    Reply to Alan Cassidy

    Reply from: D Bailey   May 3 2011, 6:45 pm EDT
    I have seen what happens on a jobsite after an accident. My point was that the writer of this report failed to recognize the differences between a transformer enclosure and a normal electrical panel, which are many. I have seen strict "no hot work" rules, and they backfire when the risks can't be discussed. The task attempted in the accident could have been done safety, but not without planning, protective equipment, insulated tools (try asking for these on a no hot-work job), and skilled journeyman. Finally, being honest about the risks can encourage others to cooperate with a shut-down.
    Reply to D Bailey


  • I knew it. from what I am reading he was working on the lighting circuits. He was nailed with the 277 volt neutral. I would bet on it!! This is extremely dangerous to new electricians, the 277volt neutral on lighting circuits.! We need more education and warnings in this area. I too have been bitten this way, thankfully not fatal.

    mrsafetyman  May 3 2011, 9:12 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • Why was he working on live circuits? It was a construction site and for the short time it takes to connect a few cicuits the power can be off. I'm sure given warning the other trades can find something to do so they are not stood idle during the down time. It could also have been done during lunch. I don't know the full story so really all I can do is ask questions. we do not know the pressure the kid was under so we can't make judgments on the apprentice. Even the best apprentice does not have the wide experience of a time served mechanic so he should be supervised. In my opinion having worked in both the UK which is 240v and the USA which is 110v the panel should be off when any connection work is being done and the only reason I can see for it to be on is purely monetary. When I worked in the UK the panel was always off unless it was running life saving equipment ie; in a hospital.

    Alan Cassidy  May 2 2011, 10:56 am EDT
    Reply to this comment
  • Reply from: mrsafetyman   May 3 2011, 9:10 am EDT
    I worked many construction sites as an electrician and where I got my serious injury also. The need for energy on construction sites is demanding. Temp power its called.! You need equipment to be run, electrical hand tools, and of course, the power for lighting. Can't work if you cnanot see. As I stated previously we had a licensed electrician from Binghamton NY wire a 480/277volt panel for lighting will all the neutrals and grounds wires to the same buss. No what this meant, HOT ceining tile grid work and fixtures!!!
    Reply to mrsafetyman


  • Schools train students to drive automobiles. The students sometimes go out and crash cars and suffer fatal accidents. Should schools be held accountable and have to defend themselves in court?

    Should the vehicle makers be at fault for the young driver's accidental deaths ?

    How about this, The students themselves are responsible to understand that they are operating a motor vehicle, a dangerous piece of equipment if used in an unsafe manner, or a safe and comfortable mode of transportation when used in the proper manner and the driver is paying attention to the rules properly. Now take this logic and transfer it back to the sad death of the young apprentice. He knew he was about to work in a panel that was energized. He should have had at the minimum a pair of leather gloves on while connecting the wiring. I went to vocational school. That fact gets pounded into electrical school students heads over and over and over. The kid sadly died, and ultimately it was his own fault.

    macmikeman  April 29 2011, 11:23 am EDT
    Reply to this comment
  • Reply from: Joe   April 29 2011, 12:17 pm EDT
    Correct
    Reply to Joe


  • I find it interesting that one of the proposed solutions is to lock panels. I have had discussions about the negative safety implications of this in contrast. I wonder if the risk is greater that somone will mess with an unlocked panel (buy the way, panel locks usually only lock the door. When you pull the deadfront to tie in circuits, you have screws) Or is the risk greater that you will be unable to shut off power to a hazardous situation quickly?

    G^2  April 28 2011, 3:56 pm EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • as for journeyman vs' apprentice. I came out of trade school with an electrical apprentice certificate and was trained to wire anything and everything. Not all companies follow this norm and many just do not have the manpower to do just that. I even knew thing that the journeyman did not being fresh out of school. Anyone can wire in my opinion. its all about thier training, schooling, and experiences. Mostly where was this guys PPE for performing this work under 70E. Forget he even worked on it live and LOTO! Why did he not have protective gloves on? Dod he have insulated HV tools? Just because someone is a journeyman does not mean they wire any better than an apprentice especially thos eout of trade schools like myself.

    mrsafetyman  April 28 2011, 1:45 pm EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • I too am a victim of a severe electrical shock injury. I cut through a power cable told it was de-energized by power co. and it back fed from another source. Another local electrical worker died a month later after my injury similar in nature. From this came the NY State Proximity act requiring grounding on both sides of your work. Now i have a degree from RIT in safety and an excellent electrical background.

    From this there is not alot of data. Although LOTO is good, its not alway feasable and in this case sounds like impractacle. Unless the particulars are made know, one cannot begin to criticize employers or the victim. I know one of the most vicious lighting circuit hazards is the 277 volt neutral. Usually as hot as the ground since the norm and acceptance is to run three hots with every neutral. Many electricians fall victim to the 277v lighting system neutral wire and there is little educatinal efforts to warn of this. I believe this may have been the issue here. He was probably very careful with the hot lead to the breaker but did not understand the neutral is used as a return path NOT a ground source. One other theory is that someone wired the panel 480/277v. with all neutra and grounds wire to the same buss bar in the panel. A huge non, no which I have seen done by even licensed electricians. I would love to assist investigating this one. I survived my injuries but not without chronic pain and constant surgical interventions!

    mrsafetyman  April 28 2011, 1:38 pm EDT
    Reply to this comment
  • Reply from: Dominick   April 28 2011, 1:51 pm EDT
    I seem to recall in my early training that it was mandatory to wear the appropriate gloves at all times and test for voltage regardless whether you personally opened the circuit or not. Violation of the above resulted in termination.

    Guess things got lax.
    Reply to Dominick


  • I feel sorry for the kid it's a terrible loss. The guys I get at that age are either fearless or know enough that they don't know enough to mess with hot work. I also would like to know the circumstances of his work in this instance. Was he at the panel or further down the light string and maybe didnt know it was even hot? I find it interesting that one of the recommendations was to lock the panel or panels. This is ok if you still have a single source access for disconnect in close proximity in case of an emergency. Also, as a side note, why do we see so many stories from Mike Holt out of Canada? Aren't there enough issues right here in the States to attend to? Be Safe, stay alert!

    Mark Key   April 28 2011, 12:08 pm EDT
    Reply to this comment
  • Reply from: Mike Holt   April 28 2011, 12:31 pm EDT
    Because the authorities in Canada provide me with the information. Nobody in the USA has stepped up to the plate.
    Reply to Mike Holt


  • Keeping in mind, we are all human. Being in the business for decades, One can teach and preach, have all the tool box talks, etc., yet if the employee does not follow the process, the rules, the employee handbook, ..... for whatever reason, (a bad day, laziness, IN A HURRY TO GO HOE OR TO BREAK) accidents will happen! I am not saying this was the reason for this death, yet it is prevalent every where, every job site. Rules and regulations, just like laws, are only for those who want to follow them.

    Joe  April 28 2011, 10:27 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • I'd like more details on how this happened. It isn't easy to kill yourself hooking up a 20a branch circuit to a panel...live or not. Even if you contact the bus bar with the back of your hand, it isn't very likely to kill you. I'm not suggesting for a minute that the rookie should have been working live unsupervised, but I am curious what exactly happened here.

    Rod  April 28 2011, 9:47 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • Apparently he wasn't wearing the minimum of leather gloves to protect his hands from possible cut/ scrape injuries.

    Dominick  April 28 2011, 9:39 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • where was the journeyman that was supposed to be doing the the job? Why was an aprentice doing hot work? where was the PPE that is required for hot work? Seems to me lots of things went way wrong but the biggest is that an aprentice was working something hot You can have all the rules & regulations in place but it doesnt do a thing if they are not followed 30 yrs in the trade & due to following the safety rules Im still here 80% of my work is hot and agove 600 volts I may not like or always agree with the safety regs but Im still here thanks to them

    Glenn Hewett  April 28 2011, 9:32 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • An apprentice should not be doing "Hot Work" unsupervised if, at all; basic PPE ( personal protection equipment ) for the hot work probably would have saved his life.

    Michael Berryman  April 28 2011, 8:17 am EDT
    Reply to this comment


Add Your Comments to this Newsletter
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

This newsletter is closed to new comments.

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter