Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

Moving on to the investigation side of things. As in the UK, the situation is slightly complicated by the fact that the incident took place on military/federal/government property. There will be no less than 4 separate investigations, and potentially 2 separate court cases. I will do my best to explain them, and what has happened so far:

CID (Criminal Investigation Division): The equivalent of our SIB, this is a military body that immediately took control of the site, closing it down and undertaking the initial ‘crime scene’ investigation, including taking photographs and evidence etc. The investigation is military and aimed at documenting the incident, as well as trying to determine if there is any criminal negligence. This report is not necessarily made available to the public, but can feed a potential criminal investigation.

OSHA (Occupational Safety & health Administration): The closest thing to our HSE. Under Federal law OSHA were contacted within 8 hours and took over the site once it was handed over to them by CID. OSHA represent the Federal Department of Labor [sic], this investigation is open to the public and transparent. This investigation will focus on what caused the accident, and who was at fault. It focuses on any violations that may have taken place, and particularly on any ‘willful violations’. It can apportion fines to those responsible, all of which are paid to the Department of Labor.

Contractor Investigation: The sub-contractor have five days to produce their own incident report, which is then passed on to USACE and feeds the USACE investigation.

USACE: An internal investigation aimed at understanding what went wrong, as well as making recommendations and generating ‘lessons learned’. The investigation establishes an ‘Executive Incident Board’ comprising 6 personnel from across the Corps (military and civilian), who are experts in their fields and are given considerable powers to investigate the incident from a military (non-criminal) perspective.

Once these investigation have been concluded, which could be as soon as six months, but likely to be much longer, there are then court proceedings to consider:

Civil Court Case: Likely to be sought by the family of the deceased in order to claim compensation from those deemed to be responsible. Any awards here would be made to the relatives of the deceased, as opposed to fines paid to the Department of Labor under the OSHA investigation.

Criminal Court Case: Potentially sought by some branch of the government against anyone likely to be criminally liable. As in the UK a higher burden of proof is required to obtain a conviction in a criminal case over a civil one. Depending on the investigation(s) the truck driver could potentially face a charge of ‘vehicular homicide’, which in Maryland can carry a custodial sentence of ten years.

Both civil and criminal trials have the ability to subpoena information from any of the plethora of investigations conducted.

So following on from my SITE FATALITY blog on Friday. After speaking to the project Safety Manager and others the situation has become a little clearer. Without wanting to overrun the blog, I’m going to write a piece confirming the circumstances of the accident, and a second outlining the investigation process so far, and moving forwards.

Firstly, the incident: As expected, the information I received on Friday was generally correct, but wrong in a few key areas. Here is an update:

A third-party (AI) delivery of aggregate was received on site. This delivery was ordered by the concrete sub-contractor (DCB), who were therefore responsible for the delivery for the whole duration of his time on site. The truck drove around to the specified delivery site, then reversed off the road and down an incline in order to discharge the aggregate. The surface of the incline was dusty, so once the mass of the aggregate had been removed from the flatbed, the truck lost traction with the surface, which is why it got stuck and needed to be recovered. So potentially some culpability for the General Contractor (MG) who failed to provide safe site access (no matting or aggregate etc. etc.). There was no tow-bar on the front of the truck (potential culpability for AI), so a tow-strap was attached to the front axle and the vehicle recovered to the track. At which point the truck driver exited the vehicle (left-hand side), and walked around to the rear of the truck in order to secure the tailgate. Whilst this was happening two sub-contractors (DCB) moved forwards (from the right of the vehicle) to undo the tow-strap. One wedged himself under the front right tire to give himself enough leverage to work the straps, whilst the second handed him tools. There was no spotter or banksman (so potential culpability on behalf of both DCB and MG for not following site best-practice). The truck driver, unaware of this activity climbed back into the cab and without doing a vehicle walk-around or checking that he was clear drove off crushing the first man, and knocking the second over (potential culpability for both the delivery driver (AI) and also MG for not properly briefing, training or supervising him). It appears that all of this happened so quickly that the MG foreman was not aware of it until after the incident. There could quite easily have been two fatalities that day.

The investigations have started, but it is likely to take some time for conclusions to be reached. It is the opinion of the Project Safety Manager (and myself) that all three parties will be found liable to some extent; it is just a question of the proportionality of blame. Ultimately, according to the contract and site-practice over here, the delivery was the full responsibility of the sub-contractor DCB (not the General Contractor (MG)), who may be found more liable than the others. Though this is just conjecture on my part at this stage.