This article was posted 12/16/2008 and is most likely outdated.

The Electric Shock Drowning of Samantha Chipley
 

 

Topic - Grounding and Safety
Subject - The Electric Shock Drowning of Samantha Chipley

December 16, 2008
This newsletter was sent to 30632 newsletter subscribers

Ask a Question |  Weekly Code GraphicQuizzes |  Free Stuff InstructorsOnline Training Products | Seminars | SubscribeUnsubscribe
[ image1 Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ] Web Page Version [Printer-Friendly]    

The Electric Shock Drowning of Samantha Chipley

 

Hi Mike,

 

A fatality investigation I was working on has recently settled and the attorney has provided the following summary.

 

 It is the intent of the mother of the deceased girl to have this write-up get into the hands of as many people as possible in the hopes of saving some other mother from having to go through what she has had to endure.

 

Of course, an intact bonding system would have prevented this accident. Many marinas are not meeting their obligation to assure that a boat they supply power to can safely use that power. My seminars take direct aim at this problem and have now been given to the staff of 175 marinas over the past 2.5 years. 

 

Thought you would be interested in seeing this.

 

Regards,

Jim Shafer

Harbor Marine Consultants, Inc.

 

On June 27, 2005, Samantha Chipley and her friends, Margaret, Susie and Courtney, arrived at the Scott Creek Marina on Cave Run Lake, which is located in Eastern Kentucky.  The girls were planning on spending the night on a houseboat owned by Susie's father.  This was Samantha's first time at the marina.  It was a very hot June afternoon and the four girls jumped in the water.  Although there were No Swimming signs that warned of the danger of electrocution, it was common practice for patrons to swim at the marina.  At the time of the incident, Samantha and Margaret were in the water swimming while Susie and Courtney were retrieving floats from another boat that was nearby.  Samantha tried to climb on a raft with Margaret when she suddenly started jerking in the water.  Margaret jumped off the raft to help Samantha and felt a shock go through her entire body. Both Samantha and Margaret swam towards the houseboat.   

 

Susie and Courtney rushed to the back of the boat and tried to help get Samantha and Margaret out of the water.  Eventually, Margaret was pulled to safety by grabbing on to a beach towel.  The girls watched helplessly as Samantha was shocked for several minutes while she struggled to stay above water.  A Good Samaritan dove into the water in an attempt save Samantha.  When the Samaritan was shocked, in what he later described as being locked up in a dead hum, he was forced to turn around, barely escaping.  By all accounts, the incident lasted about seven (7) minutes.  Eventually Samantha disappeared into the darkness.  Her body was recovered hours later.

 

Margaret later described the incident, painting a horrifying picture of what the girls experienced.  Margaret stated that the shock felt similar to the stinging pain you experience when your foot goes to sleep.  However, she felt this sensation throughout her entire body.  The shock was so intense that Margaret couldn't move her fingers.  As Margaret and Samantha moved closer to the houseboat, the intensity increased.  Margaret grabbed Samantha's shirt to try to keep her from going under.  At that point, the intensity was so great that there was nothing either girl could do.  Margaret stopped breathing as her body tensed up.  She began to feel like she was going to pass out and like her feet were sinking to the bottom of the lake.  Margaret was worried that she was going to die, and her thoughts were racing.  She stated that during the last minute she was in the water, she had come to terms with the fact that she was going to die.  Margaret tried to float on her back because she did not want to look down into the darkness.  Margaret stated that she thought if she were on her back, she would be able to look up at the sky in order to find her way to heaven as her body descended into the darkness of the bottom of the lake.  Margaret's testimony epitomizes what Samantha likely experienced during her last moments of life.     

 

Subsequent investigation revealed that the houseboat's wiring system did not contain a ground wire.  At the time of the incident, the boat was plugged into the marina's power pedestal.  It was believed by many that a battery charger located in the engine compartment of the boat faulted, which energized the boat's hull.  Others opined that a light aboard the houseboat shorted out and energized the hull.  Once the boat's hull became energized, the water surrounding the boat and the marina became lethal. 

 

Samantha's family and friends were heartbroken by such a preventable tragedy.  Hoping that she could stop another child from dying in such a way, Samantha's mother, Roberta Chipley, filed a lawsuit against the owner of the houseboat, as well as against the marina and other entities.  Over two (2) years of litigation followed. 

 

The primary legal issue in the case was whether or not the marina could be held legally responsible for Samantha's death.  Like many marinas, the marina leased boat slips and sold electricity to its boat owners.  Samantha's estate argued the marina had a common law duty to inspect boats moored there before permitting them connect to the marina's power supply.  Further, Samantha's estate argued that the marina had a duty to install ground fault monitoring and/or ground fault protection to monitor and/or to prevent electricity from entering the water in and surrounding the marina.  The marina argued that it had no duty to protect Samantha by inspecting boats, or by installing ground fault monitoring and/or ground fault protection.  The marina submitted that the boat owner was solely responsible for the tragedy.  The week before trial, at a court ordered settlement conference, the case was settled for $700,000.00.  Samantha Chipley's family hopes that her story will serve as a catalyst for much needed change in the marina industry.  

 

Hon. B. Clark Batten II

Garmer & O'Brien, LLP

May 13, 2008

        

Click here to post a comment
[ View More Newsletters ] [ Send to a Friend ] [ Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]

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)

Experiencing a Problem? Click Here

 
Comments
  • I pass my sympathy to the family Many states that have marinas do not do safety inspections or quality control of anything after the initial installation. Im sure here in my state where my sailboat is moored that the system is aprx 25 yrs old based on the products used. I see all kinds of code violations as well as safety issues. The biggest issue with me is the people who run heaters off of 14&16 gauge extension cords or the marina manager who allows unskilled people to do electrical work. I have my personal ways of settling this mess but my personal state refuses to follow any suggestions maybe some tough legal actions can take place to prevent anything further. In the trades we call this hot water;boats constantly requiring zinks to be changed are a sure sign of hot water,people need to start forcing the juridiction having authority to do the job they are paid to do Anyone having any comments please contact me on this sight. I have been a master electrician for 27 yrs

    Glenn
  • Reply from: Jim Shafer   
    There you go again Bob - making statements that are totally wrong and which do not remotely describe galvanic problems and the solutions. You continue to do a great disservice to Mike's readers. You need a job or a hobby. Jim

    Reply from: Bob   
    Jim, could you please tell me what statement was "totally wrong".The only items that I may be outdated on are cathodic protection for aluminum hulls and active electric cathodic protection. To the best of my knowledge zinc is still widely used as the sacrificial electrode and aluminum hulls usually don't require that protection-but I believe that only because I never changed zincs on an aluminum hulled ship. Zincs are still used in all condensers on all ships to protect the tube sheets-as these are usually steel. Also, the electric field around zincs may vary somewhat but it can never be dangerous to humans.

    Reply from: Jim Shafer   
    Sorry Bob, I know you would like some help but I don't type well enough and you seem to not even to have a fundamental grasp of marina galvanic corrosion. My consulting rate is $150/hr - this is how I make my living. Guess I can't help. All sorts of info can be found on Google. Jim

    Reply from: Jim Shafer   
    Bob, Thanks for the reference. Not much relevant to "plastic" boats, and IPCC systems discussed extensively, somehting you said you didn't seem to know much about - you said they may be "crazy schemes". No more. Jim


Reply to this comment
* 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