Have you ever thought about the fundamdentals of safety as a cross examination area in the right case? Sometimes the simple safety standards can be the best cross examination for a particular witness. Especially one that wants to argue about the obvious. Here is an excerpt from part of such an cross exam to give you an idea of what I mean.
ELIMINATING OR MINIMIZING RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH1. TRUE THAT TEXACO SHOULD HOLD PARAMOUNT THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF IT’S WORKERS?
2. AGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT:
ANY 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 THEN INSTALL PROTECTIVE DEVICES AROUND IT IF POSSIBLE?
7. IF ONE CAN’T ELIMINATE THE DANGER OR PROTECT AGAINST IT, THEN ONE MUST GIVE WARNINGS OF THE DANGER SO PEOPLE WILL KNOW?
8. AGREE THAT “APPEARANCES ARE OFTEN DECEIVING” AND WORKERS MIGHT NOT RECOGNIZE A DANGER UNLESS WARNED ABOUT IT?
9) AN INADEQUATE WARNING IS NO WARNING AT ALL?