Tree Service Owner Charged In Death of Employee

[Ductape]

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=79962637-9e90-449a-9c87-f365f067de49

BRENTWOOD – A judge heard arguments this morning about whether prosecutors can use federal occupational safety rules at the negligent homicide trial of an East Kingston tree-service owner accused of causing an employee’s death.

Maurice Buzzell is facing charges of negligent homicide and reckless conduct for the death of Jon LaVigueur, 22, of Kingston.

Workers were cutting an 82-foot pine tree on Aug. 7, 2007 on 15th Street in Kingston which fell on LaVigueur and killed him, according to prosecutors.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

“(He) required employees to stand in front of trees and stay there until the trees started to fall,” Assistant County Attorney Howard Helrich said.

:jawdrop:​

If that is true, I'd have no trouble voting to convict of negligent homicide.

 

[Booshcat]

“(He) required employees to stand in front of trees and stay there until the trees started to fall,” Assistant County Attorney Howard Helrich said.

On the other hand, that describes someone cutting down a tree with a chainsaw.

 

[Ductape]

:jawdrop:​

If that is true, I'd have no trouble voting to convict of negligent homicide.

I figure there HAS to more to it than that. My memory could be off on this one, but it seems to me the worker that was killed was using a rope to ensure the tree went in a particular direction. Rope must have been much shorter than the tree?

 

[treeslayer]

of course he had to stand there, he was pulling a rope.



rope must have been short, and he was mesmerized by the falling tree.

 

[EdenT]

Sad news indeed.

I did a bit of a background check on this story. This article has the OSHA violations (7 of the 9) that the company was fined for.

KINGSTON: OSHA fines tree removal company after worker's death
By James A. Kimble
Staff writer

Here is the story from the paper the day after with eyewitness accounts of what transpired.

Sounds like the company was an accident waiting to happen. I feel bad for the family that lost a son.

Sad sad story.

 

[pdqdl]

Some of those citations sound like a vindictive bureaucracy seeking to get even for the unfortunate death of a worker.

Assess the work area to see if there were hazards that would require workers to wear protective equipment. Really? It's only tree work!

Make sure each employee wore foot protection such as heavy-duty logging boots. I don't think the fellow died from injuries to his feet.

Provide first-aid kits at work sites where trees were being cut. It would have had to be one heck of a first aid kit to save him.

Start chain saws on the ground. Since when is that a rule? I have read manufacturer's instructions that tell you to hold the saw between your legs.

Make sure brakes were engaged on the chain saw when it was started. Since when is that a rule?

I don't pretend to know all the OSHA rules, and these are all good things to do or have on the job. It sounds to me like a stack of petty charges, none of which would have saved the guy if they had been rigidly enforced.


Some years back I had two idiots that almost got squished after the tree was pulled in their direction. They pulled a huge oak over, the rope went slack, and they stood there like posts, apparently mesmerized. The cutter yelled "RUN !!!", and they came to life before it got them. There was lots of room for there to be no risk to begin with, and they were not new to tree work.

 

[STIHLMAN83]

This is close to home for me, two towns away. It is sad that a young man lost his life due to working. If the employer was working in unsfe work conditions that is one thing and this could have been prevented. If I remember right when this happened it was this young man's second day in the job. I am not saying that he should have been doing this or that, or the the employer should go to jail or be let free because I do not know the exact situation he was in and it is not clear in the story. A little common sense goes a long way.

 

[oldirty]

This is close to home for me, two towns away. It is sad that a young man lost his life due to working. If the employer was working in unsfe work conditions that is one thing and this could have been prevented. If I remember right when this happened it was this young man's second day in the job. I am not saying that he should have been doing this or that, or the the employer should go to jail or be let free because I do not know the exact situation he was in and it is not clear in the story. A little common sense goes a long way.

i think i may have heard the ground wasnt cleaned up and was a mess from the top before. then you add the short pull line. and now i hear day2 into the game. damn shame.


where you from stihlman? ive been in a few back yards of southern nh. cheap copenhagen at the store too.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

rope must have been short, and he was mesmerized by the falling tree.

He was running away when he got hit.

 

[VA-Sawyer]

I'm concerned that the court seems to be holding the tree service to the OSHA logging standards. I was under the impression that as long as we were following the z133 standards, OSHA would leave us alone. I pulled out my copy of z133 looking for something to confirm such, but don't see it.

 

[outofmytree]

Maurice Buzzel may just as well have pushed that young man under the tree. This is gross negligence.

If the rope was long enough there is no way the tree could have fallen on him.

If he had adequate training for the job given him he may well have gone left or right with his coworkers.

If he had a hard hat on he may have recovered from his injuries.

If the escape paths had been cleared he may well not have tripped and died.

I own the company. I am responsible for my guys. Why does it take a young mans death for simple rules to be applied and enforced?

I hope the prosecution is succesful and that the result is broadcast loud and clear.

Yes this is a dangerous industry. Which is exactly why employers need to meet or exceed their legal obligations to their employees.

 

[outofmytree]

Some of those citations sound like a vindictive bureaucracy seeking to get even for the unfortunate death of a worker.

Assess the work area to see if there were hazards that would require workers to wear protective equipment. Really? It's only tree work! Its called a JSA

Make sure each employee wore foot protection such as heavy-duty logging boots. I don't think the fellow died from injuries to his feet. No he died from being struck on the head after tripping over. His footwear may well have made a difference

Provide first-aid kits at work sites where trees were being cut. It would have had to be one heck of a first aid kit to save him. If he had been adequately protected a decent first aid kit may well have saved his life

Start chain saws on the ground. Since when is that a rule? I have read manufacturer's instructions that tell you to hold the saw between your legs. Both are acceptable practises described in the user manual of every Stihl chainsaw I own

Make sure brakes were engaged on the chain saw when it was started. Since when is that a rule? Read the Stihl user manual.

I don't pretend to know all the OSHA rules, and these are all good things to do or have on the job. It sounds to me like a stack of petty charges, none of which would have saved the guy if they had been rigidly enforced. See above for the ways in which I disagree

Some years back I had two idiots that almost got squished after the tree was pulled in their direction. They pulled a huge oak over, the rope went slack, and they stood there like posts, apparently mesmerized. The cutter yelled "RUN !!!", and they came to life before it got them. There was lots of room for there to be no risk to begin with, and they were not new to tree work. So again the rope was too short.... That is so easy to fix it would be laughable in any other circumstance

I am not attacking you personally mate. I simply disagree with what you posted.

 

[pdqdl]

That's ok. I have thick skin. In fact, sometimes us folks with thick skin enjoy being rubbed the wrong way! In this case, I was not contending as an advocate for the poor abused owner, I was commenting on the pointless interference of our government bureaucracy.

My point in commenting on this unfortunate death is that having a government agency come in and cite an owner for a myriad of inconsequential violations does not address the true cause of why the poor kid got killed. All it does is impoverish the company, enrich the governent, and reduce the capacity of the company to make restitution to the family of the victim. How about something that reads like "Failed to provide a safe working environment for ground personnel" or perhaps "Did knowingly put at risk unqualified employees without proper instruction to safeguard them from injury"

Originally Posted by pdqdl
Some of those citations sound like a vindictive bureaucracy seeking to get even for the unfortunate death of a worker.

Assess the work area to see if there were hazards that would require workers to wear protective equipment. Really? It's only tree work! Its called ISA I was being sarcastic! But the point is that any violation cited using that language is probably easily defeated by an attorney. I don't think there was a failure to assess hazards. I think there was a failure to comply with known hazard prevention requirements.

Make sure each employee wore foot protection such as heavy-duty logging boots. I don't think the fellow died from injuries to his feet. No he died from being struck on the head after tripping over. His footwear may well have made a difference. I'll bet against that! Even if he was wearing OSHA approved boots, he would likely have been entangled in brush. Perhaps he would have been saved if he had been wearing sandals (flip-flops) that would have easily fallen off in the entanglement. We will never know.

Provide first-aid kits at work sites where trees were being cut. It would have had to be one heck of a first aid kit to save him. If he had been adequately protected a decent first aid kit may well have saved his life Your comments are a bit contentious here. Since none of us know the facts, we should be addressing the most likely scenario. A first aid kit, as required by OSHA, only contains materials that are effective on minor skin injuries. Sometimes they contain a cord that could be used as a tourniquet. No emergency life protection materials would have been included, certainly nothing that would help with massive head or internal injuries.

Start chain saws on the ground. Since when is that a rule? I have read manufacturer's instructions that tell you to hold the saw between your legs. Both are acceptable practices described in the user manual of every Stihl chainsaw I own Since when do "acceptable practices" have anything to do with regulations? Especially in this country. There is a huge difference between what makes good sense and what you should fine a company for violating. As I understand the reports on this injury, the victim of this story wasn't even using a chainsaw. Any citations given to the company on that issue would consist of punishing them for coming to the attention of OSHA by bumping off an employee.

Make sure brakes were engaged on the chain saw when it was started. Since when is that a rule? Read the Stihl user manual. Stihl does not write OSHA regulations. And how would writing up the owner for this violation have protected the victim?

I don't pretend to know all the OSHA rules, and these are all good things to do or have on the job. It sounds to me like a stack of petty charges, none of which would have saved the guy if they had been rigidly enforced. See above for the ways in which I disagree OK. I did.

Some years back I had two idiots that almost got squished after the tree was pulled in their direction. They pulled a huge oak over, the rope went slack, and they stood there like posts, apparently mesmerized. The cutter yelled "RUN !!!", and they came to life before it got them. There was lots of room for there to be no risk to begin with, and they were not new to tree work. So again the rope was too short.... That is so easy to fix it would be laughable in any other circumstance Absolutely true. I had that conversation with my climber when the event took place. What is not known in my little tale is how close the guys really were when the tree came down. The point of my story was that they were not taking measures to insure that they were safe, and had to be told to move out of the way of an obvious risk.

I am not attacking you personally mate. I simply disagree with what you posted.

 

[pdqdl]

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=79962637-9e90-449a-9c87-f365f067de49

BRENTWOOD – A judge heard arguments this morning about whether prosecutors can use federal occupational safety rules at the negligent homicide trial of an East Kingston tree-service owner accused of causing an employee’s death....

I think whoever put a chainsaw to the tree and was supervising the job should be charged. Cutting a tree down on top of a worker is clearly negligent.

 

[tree md]

Very sad. My prayers for the family.

I have dropped trees in tight places before where we knew we would have to beat a hasty retreat. I have been on both ends of it, cutter and rope man. In every situation we have gotten a plan together before the drop. That is on every tree whether it is in a tight spot or not. Every member of the team needs to be reminded to have an escape route planned out, even the faller. The faller or supervisor needs to hear everyone's plan and approve it. You need to have everyone spell out for you what they are going to do and where they are going to go. Especially when there is a new man on the crew. You can't just assume that someone has the knowledge to choose the correct plan of escape.

We are responsible for these inexperienced guys on the end of the line. So sad that an organized game plan could have made this death avoidable.

 

[VA-Sawyer]

1910.266(d)(1)(iv)
The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg protection constructed with cut-resistant material, such as ballistic nylon. The leg protection shall cover the full length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg to protect against contact with a moving chain saw. Exception: This requirement does not apply when an employee is working as a climber if the employer demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by wearing leg protection in the particular situation, or when an employee is working from a vehicular mounted elevating and rotating work platform meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.68.
1910.266(d)(1)(v)
The employer shall assure that each employee wears foot protection, such as heavy-duty logging boots that are waterproof or water repellent, cover and provide support to the ankle. The employer shall assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears foot protection that is constructed with cut-resistant material which will protect the employee against contact with a running chain saw. Sharp, calk-soled boots or other slip-resistant type boots may be worn where the employer demonstrates that they are necessary for the employee's job, the terrain, the timber type, and the weather conditions, provided that foot protection otherwise required by this paragraph is met.
1910.266(d)(1)(vi)
The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee who works in an area where there is potential for head injury from falling or flying objects wears head protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910.1910.266(d)(1)(vii)
The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee wears the following:
1910.266(d)(1)(vii)(A)
Eye protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910 where there is potential for eye injury due to falling or flying objects; and
1910.266(d)(1)(vii)(B)
Face protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910 where there is potential for facial injury such as, but not limited to, operating a chipper. Logger-type mesh screens may be worn by employees performing chain-saw operations and yarding.

Note to paragraph (d)(1)(vii): The employee does not have to wear a separate eye protection device where face protection covering both the eyes and face is worn.
1910.266(d)(2)
"First-aid kits."
1910.266(d)(2)(i)
The employer shall provide first-aid kits at each work site where trees are being cut (e.g., felling, buckling, limbing), at each active landing, and on each employee transport vehicle. The number of first-aid kits and the content of each kit shall reflect the degree of isolation, the number of employees, and the hazards reasonably anticipated at the work site.
1910.266(d)(2)(ii)
At a minimum, each first-aid kit shall contain the items listed in Appendix A at all times.
1910.266(d)(2)(iii)
The employer also may have the number and content of first-aid kits reviewed and approved annually by a health care provider.
1910.266(d)(2)(iv)
The employer shall maintain the contents of each first-aid kit in a serviceable condition.

1910.266(e)(2)(vi)
The chain saw shall be started on the ground or where otherwise firmly supported. Drop starting a chain saw is prohibited.1910.266(e)(2)(vii)
The chain saw shall be started with the chain brake engaged.
1910.266(e)(2)(viii)
The chain saw shall be held with the thumbs and fingers of both hands encircling the handles during operation unless the employer demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by keeping both hands on the chain saw in that particular situation.
1910.266(e)(2)(ix)
The chain-saw operator shall be certain of footing before starting to cut. The chain saw shall not be used in a position or at a distance that could cause the operator to become off-balance, to have insecure footing, or to relinquish a firm grip on the saw.
1910.266(e)(2)(x)
Prior to felling any tree, the chain-saw operator shall clear away brush or other potential obstacles which might interfere with cutting the tree or using the retreat path.
1910.266(e)(2)(xi)
The chain saw shall not be used to cut directly overhead.
1910.266(e)(2)(xii)
The chain saw shall be carried in a manner that will prevent operator contact with the cutting chain and muffler.
1910.266(e)(2)(xiii)
The chain saw shall be shut off or the throttle released before the feller starts his retreat.
1910.266(e)(2)(xiv)
The chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be engaged whenever a saw is carried further than 50 feet (15.2 m). The chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be engaged when a saw is carried less than 50 feet if conditions such as, but not limited to, the terrain, underbrush and slippery surfaces, may create a hazard for an employee.

These are Laws in the Logging section of the OSHA regulations. Not "good practices" or "recomended procedures" but actual mandatory Federal Regulations.
There are a lot of things in the logging section about Training ( Required for each employee ), First Aid Certification ( Required for each employee ) and more rules one needs to be aware of.
If we are going to be held to these standards for tree work, then I would like to know it before called into court.

 

[pdqdl]

Those are good to read, particularly the last paragraphs about chainsaw operations. But here is the question: Do OSHA logging standards apply to tree service operations in a residential setting?

I have no idea.

I do know that OSHA has no jurisdiction if you happen to be running a mining operation; there is a different safety agency in charge of that type of operation. We all know that we can be hauled into court by OSHA, but what are the applicable rules? Are we "Logging" or do we slip into some other category? I fear that they would pull out whatever rule they wanted and let the lawyers prove otherwise.

 

[1harlowr]

Glad we don't let the facts get involved Don't think anyone on here knows what they are enough to know if anyone (tree company or man killed) was negligent

 

[VA-Sawyer]

"Do OSHA logging standards apply to tree service operations in a residential setting? "

That is the $64,000 question. On the OSHA web site they have a section that defines "logging".

"Logging operations." Operations associated with felling and moving trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery, such as, but not limited to, marking danger trees and trees/logs to be cut to length, felling, limbing, bucking, debarking, chipping, yarding, loading, unloading, storing, and transporting machines, equipment and personnel to, from and between logging sites.

Here is the regulation:

Scope and application.
1910.266(b)(1)
This standard establishes safety practices, means, methods and operations for all types of logging, regardless of the end use of the wood. These types of logging include, but are not limited to, pulpwood and timber harvesting and the logging of sawlogs, veneer bolts, poles, pilings and other forest products. This standard does not cover the construction or use of cable yarding systems.

Notice the part " regardless of the end use of the wood. "

Don't see anything that says " does not apply to arborculture work " anywhere in the rules.

My 30 years experience dealing with Federal Regulations and the FAA leads me to believe that OSHA Logging rules may be applied to us tree workers.

VA