 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto v. Stoneberger8/28/2002
the court made its decision or at any time thereafter, except on two occasions that will be discussed infra.
Mr. Campbell testified that as part of his MOSH investigation he spoke with Mr. Ditto at the accident scene. During this July 27, 1998, conversation, Mr. Ditto described how he used the crane to demolish the building. He told Mr. Campbell that he manipulated the boom of the crane itself against the structure to bring it down. Mr. Ditto demolished the feed mill without a demolition plan and could not produce a documented engineering survey for the demolition. According to Mr. Campbell, an engineering survey is required by law and is necessary to ensure that one's employees are not underneath areas where building floors or walls or other attachments might be weakened.
During Mr. Campbell's direct testimony, the following exchange occurred:
Q: Mr. Campbell, based on your knowledge, training and experience, is utilization of the crane in the manner described by Mr. Ditto a proper use, a misuse or a proper use under any circumstances.
[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Objection. He's not a crane operator.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[APPELLEE'S COUNSEL]: You can answer.
A: I think it would be an improper use.
Q: And why do you say that?
A: This was an eight ton crane. All . . . all capacities and ratings on cranes are based upon a freely suspended load hanging on either a wire rope or other appropriate tangents or connections. Any time that you start dragging or pushing the boom then you're imposing side load. Cranes fail basically for two reasons: They're either A. - overloaded or [B.] you have side loads applied. That's the main reason for boom failures, equipment failures in cranes.
Q: . . . I direct your attention specifically to the building that's being worked on material in that building. What are the dangers associated with using the boom in the fashion that Mr. Ditto described?
[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Repeat objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A: If you lost the boom it could come crashing down and you wouldn't know what was going ensue afterwards and things could start flying around maybe, maybe not.
Q: Is there any way to control the materials in the building when you utilize a boom like that?
A: Not that I can see.
Q: How would one control a big steel pipe that is . . . that was described in this case?
[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor. That is speculative. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q: What methods could you use to control?
A: This comes back to your engineering . . . your engineering survey more than it does to the crane. You're required in your engineering survey to make provisions where your employees are not underneath deteriorated walls or other attachments to the building or floors or walls or other attachments that might be weakened or loosened. If you have those then you are required to brace them, shore them or use some other effective means to control that so that it can't hit your employees so your employees aren't exposed to the hazards of falling material or falling through say a weakened or deteriorated floor.
In regard to the foregoing evidence, the only issue preserved for review concerning Mr. Campbell's expertise, is whether the trial judge erred in overruling the objection to two questions based on counsel's objection that Mr. Campbell "was not a crane operator."
" he mere fact that a person offered as a witness has not been personally involved in the activity about which
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|