Powered by GoogleTranslate

Accident Report Detail

Accident Summary Nr: 202356994 - Two Employees Are Injured When Struck by Truck Backing Up

Accident Summary Nr: 202356994 -- Report ID: 0352430 -- Event Date: 06/23/2005
Inspection NrDate OpenedSICNAICSEstablishment Name
30868722706/24/20051622237310Martins Construction Corp.

Abstract: During the 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. night shift on June 23, 2005, Employee #1, #2 and 12 other coworkers for Martins Construction Corp. were working on the I-95 Northbound Exit 60 exit ramp onto Moravia Road. They would be installing the latex cement on a section of the closed off lane on the exit ramp. The latex cement was delivered and dispensed from Mixer Trucks that were operated by drivers from G. A. and F. C. Wagman, Inc., the general contractor. After the first truck was emptied it drove back to the Keith Avenue yard to get refilled. Employee #1, #2 and 12 other coworkers were taking a break behind the Bidwell Paving Machine while they waited for the second truck to come up and dispense its load. The Martins employees and coworkers were wearing hard hats and had on bright yellow safety vests. During this break time, Employee #1 and #2, using a wheelbarrow, started picking up debris and dumped it and had come back approximately midway on the work deck. As the second latex cement mixer truck was backing up, the operator had to go around and past two Bobcat Loaders that were parked on the drivers side of the deck and then traveled another 300 ft. Employees #1 and #2 saw the truck backing up the deck and stopped their work and took the wheelbarrow and went over and stood behind a green in color light plant vehicle that was located along the Jersey barriers and was on the rear right side of the mixer truck as it was backing up the ramp deck. The light pole on the light plant vehicle was up in the air but the lights were not on. Wagmans mixer truck operator stated that he failed to see the light plant and or simply forgot it was there. With the light plants lights not being on, it were harder to see The truck operator was under the impression that no one would be working on the deck in his path of travel while he was backing up. All of the trucks lights were on, the flashers were on, and the back up alarm was audible and working. All of the windows and mirrors were in excellent condition. As the mixer truck was backing up, the rear right area of the truck struck the light plant vehicle that had two wheels on it. The mixer operator did not realize that he had struck the light plant and ended up pushing it about 50 feet. Employees #1 and #2. who spoke virtually no English, could not move fast enough and were knocked down by the light plant vehicle. A hard hat from one of the employees rolled out on the driver's side of the mixer and then an employee stumbled out from behind the mixer truck. The back of the truck was 27-ft from the operators cab and the back of the truck was 9-ft wide. The operator stopped the truck immediately and then pulled forward four to five feet before getting out of the truck and running to the back of the truck where he saw Employees #1 and #2 had been injured. The mixer operator called the emergency medical services. Both of the employees were taken to the Shock Trauma unit. Employee #1 broke his left leg and had other bruises, lacerations, and strains. Employee #2 suffered lower back, shoulder and leg injuries consisting of strains, sprains, bruises and lacerations. Both employees were hospitalized and treated for their injuries. The two employees were working in the area as the truck was backing up and the operator did not know that anyone would be working on or in his path of travel. No was acting as a spotter or helping to direct the mixer truck in this tight area with the plant lights off. The mixer truck operator did not see and or forgot that the light plant was there. One of the employees had just started work on June 20, and had received virtually no training about working in these conditions. Both companies had written safety and health programs but neither addressed this type of work situation and the procedures that should be followed by each company and with each other.

Keywords: SHOULDER, CONSTRUCTION, BACK, TRUCK, STRUCK BY, BACKING UP, CONTUSION, LEG
Accident Details
End Use Project Type Project Cost Stories Non-building Height Fatality
Highway, road, street Alteration or rehabilitation $1,000,000 to $5,000,000

Employee Details
Employee # Inspection Nr Age Sex Degree of Injury Nature of Injury Occupation Construction
1 308687227 Hospitalized injury Fracture Construction laborers Distance of Fall: feet
Worker Height Above Ground/Floor: feet
Cause: Paving
Fatality Cause: Crushed/run-over of non-operator by operating cons
2 308687227 Hospitalized injury Strain/Sprain Construction laborers Distance of Fall: feet
Worker Height Above Ground/Floor: feet
Cause: Bituminous concrete placement
Fatality Cause: Crushed/run-over of non-operator by operating cons

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.

Close