We;ve been in Europe and in fact we leave tomorrow, so I’ve been behind in posting to this site. Here’s a simple outline intended for cross examination about safety. This is from one of my past cases ihvolving an injury at a refinjery.

Warning-safety cross examination general outline eliminating or minimizing risk of serious injury or death

1. True that texaco should hold paramount the safety and health of it’s workers?
2. Agree with the proposition thatany risk of serious bodily injury or death is always unacceptable if reasonable means could have been usedto minimize or eliminate the danger?
3. Agree that "it’s better to be safe then sorry?"
4. Agree one should first inspect for dangerous conditions?
>5. If a danger is discovered one should eliminate the hazard if reasonably possible?
6. If you can’t eliminate the danger or protect against it, then one must give warnings of the danger so people will know?

(1) agree that "appearances are often deceiving" and workers might not recognize a danger unless warned about it?
(2) an inadequate warning is no warning at all?

7. True that the greater the risk of injury the greater the duty to act?

B. Safety hazards to workers 

1. It would have cost far less to eliminate hazards or install safety devices then to pay the cost for serious injury

2. Life is too precious to ever risk it when the hazard can be avoided?

3. Cost effective safety measures- cost of injury vs cost of

C. Protection

(1) in america, we care about others

(2) in america, we don’t want people to get hurt

C. Analyzing what is reasonable in accident prevention 

1. In deciding what’s reasonable in accident prevention, would evaluating the risk of injury be important?

(1) the risk or chance of it happening should be considered? 

2. The seriousness of the hazard or danger is also something to be considered?

(1) a hazard that could result in death is more serious then one that might make a small bruise?

3. The comparison of both of these risk & seriousness of harm should be made in deciding what is reasonable by way of accident prevention?

4. Do you agree that when it comes to preventing serious injury or death from preventable accidents, texaco should practice the policy: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" 

E. Evaluating the cost and effort involved to eliminate or minimize the hazard 1. Agree that in evaluating what was reasonable to have eliminated, prevented or minimized the chance of this death we should consider:

(1) is the proposed accident prevention action possible to do?

(a) was it possible to do?

(2) is it a known and accepted accident prevention method? – used by others?

(a) this is a known and accepted practice?

(3) what would it cost?

A) normally a lot less expensive to prevent accidents then the suffer injury or death?

(4) how much time does it take?

(5) how difficult is it to do? – what effort is required?

(6) is a substantial personal danger or sacrifice in carrying out the safety measure?

F. Took safety for granted

1. Isn’t it true that workers have the right to assume they know their job and will it right? 

2. Responsibility: if you have control over the work site 

Then you are responsible for the safety of workers on that site?

3. Accountability: if you fail to fulfill your duty of safety then you are accountable?

4. Not acceptable for texaco to fail in it’s duty to provide a safe work site and blame someone else?

5. If a driver’s air bag fails to work, the manufacturer shouldn’t be allowed to say: "but if had driven safely you would wouldn’t need an air bag"

F. Workers have right to assume owner will keep work site en safe

1. Have right to assume will adopt policies and procedures to eliminate potential hazards of serious injury?

3. Workers have right to expect that if a potential hazard of serious harm exists on texaco’s property texaco will take safety action

(1) when you fly on a commercial airplane you do not

Have to check the tires, the gauges or ask about

The training of the pilot.