Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Michael Chalmers
I am a personal injury lawyer frequently consulted in relation to tripping or stumbling accidents caused when a lift car stops out of alignment with the floor. This is usually by about 2 to 4 inches, although people do exaggerate. I have two cases currently and would appreciate help in understanding why these cases are invariably doggedly defended on the basis the accident could not have happened because maintenance reports showed no problem or the doors cannot open if there is misalignment of more that a fraction or even that some misalignment is "normal".
I wonder why there seems to be this difference between what experts presumably tell employers and my experience of receiving quite a lot of these cases?
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barny
Michael
Please email me directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Cooper
Michael
I run a lift and escalator safety course for EHO's. We dont charge for this as we use it as a way of introducing ourselves. There have been recent courses in Milton Keynes and Manchester with one in Belfast next week followed by Leyland, Wrexham and Ashby de la Zouch. If you, or anyone else for that matter, want to come along please let me know.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Michael
The issue is that these people believe that a maintenance inspection means that the equipment is in good order until the next inspection. This is a fallacy that many of this type of organisation like to state because they feel it removes them from liability to properly maintain if a failure occurs.
You, as well as I, know that the case law for hoists and lifts is well established - if the equipment fails it was not adequately maintained. Thus if someone is injured then there is a claim against both employer and maintenance company. The term "some misalignment" needs to be amplified and defined or else how can an engineer know if he has reached an acceptable standard. The O&M manuals should also give the in service tolerances.
Any more and we need to discuss my rates:-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Michael
Classically a fair few instances are over the gap in the threshold when the doors are open which by the persons perception they think it is out of alignment; some are worse than others but they are a trap for stiletto heel style shoes, a fair few nasties have been reported to me over the years.
I have had reports of a 'step' appearing on some of our lifts but I have yet to be able to get the lift to duplicate the scenario, they are all within 6 monthly test and whenever I report this to the engineers they have been unable to find anything wrong.
One of life's mysteries in this posters opinion.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Donaldson
I don't have the BS to hand but from memory a 2 speed lift has an alignment tolerance of +- 5mm and a single speed lift +- 20 mm.
We have over 40 lifts and we have lift engineers here during the working day who check for alignment each working day.
We do get reports of misalignment and yes sometimes we do find that adjustment is needed but as CFT says more often than not we can not replicate the alleged fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Cooper
there is a document known as EN81-80 entitled improvement of safety of existing lifts. There is a 74 point checklist which I can e mail to people if they are interested. Please e mail me directly if you want a copy david.cooper@lecs.co.uk
Levelling will vary with the type of drive system installed as some lifts stop using a brake and some electrically drive to a stop and then the brake is applied similar to a handbrake on a car. There are a number of drive systems single speed AC, two speed AC, AC VV, DC Ward Leonard, DC SCR, ACVF etc.....
To say that if a lift stops out of level it hasnt been maintained properly isnt a valid statement. A component failure that could not have been predicted can cause out of level stopping.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
David
By case law a component failure is de facto a failure of maintenance. I cannot remember the case names but it concerned the failure of a lift cable. It had been regularly inspected but it was held that the maintenance had failed to detect the incipient fault and was thus defective.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Cooper
Bob
There is also case law, thompson v glasgow city council, where a case failed on the basis that despite the lift having been maintained that a component failure (door skate roller) could not have been detected in advance of the incident.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Cooper
Can I point out that when I mentioned drive systems previously these only refer to electric traction type lifts. The situation with hydraulic lifts is very different.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.