Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Program |
|
Groundman Killed by Falling Tree Section at Tree Removal Operation |
|
|||||||||||
SummaryOn October 2, 2005, an 18-year-old groundman for a small tree trimming company was killed when he was struck by a falling section of tree. The incident occurred at a private residence where the company had been hired to remove four trees and to prune a fifth. The employer hired two workers as groundmen to assist him in doing the ground work as he cut down the trees. The victim, who was referred to the employer by another employee, was working his first day as a groundman with the company. His training that day was on-the-job, and included warnings from the employer to stay clear when he was working in the trees. At approximately 4:00 p.m., the employer had climbed to the top of a 50-foot-high sweetgum tree, his last tree of the day. He had already removed the branches and was cutting the tree in sections, beginning at the top and working his way down. The employer had just made a cut with his chainsaw and was pushing a section clear when he saw the victim walking on the ground beneath him. He shouted a warning and the victim tried to run clear, but the tree section struck him on the head. The victim was airlifted to the regional trauma center where he died of his injuries approximately seven hours later. NJ FACE investigators recommend following these safety guidelines to prevent similar incidents:
IntroductionOn October 3, 2005, NJ FACE staff were informed by the county Medical Examiner of the death of a tree service employee who was killed the day before, after being struck by a falling section of a tree. On the same day, A NJ FACE investigator contacted the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Compliance Officer and arranged to conduct a concurrent investigation. On October 11, 2005, the FACE investigator and OSHA Compliance Officer met at the incident site to interview the employer and his coworker. The FACE investigator explained the program, distributed the NJ FACE “informed consent” material, and obtained permission to investigate the incident from the employer. During the visit the incident site was examined, measured, and photographed. Additional information for this report was obtained from the police report, the county Medical Examiner’s report, and the OSHA investigation file. The employer was a part-time, self-employed tree trimmer who operated a tree service as a second job (SIC 0783, NAICS 561730). He was primarily employed with a municipal department of public works as a full-time tree trimmer, and operated his tree-trimming business as a side job during the weekend. The employer had nine years of previous experience as an employee with a professional tree-trimming company, where he was promoted to foreman after three years. He had not received any formal training, nor had he developed any written safety procedures after starting his own company, but stated that he used the book, The Tree Climber’s Companion, as his primary reference book for daily operations. His company was unincorporated and did not carry workers’ compensation insurance; however, he did carry liability insurance for property damage. The victim was an 18-year-old white male who had recently graduated from high school. He was referred to the job by a friend and was working his first day as a groundman.Back to TopInvestigationThe incident site was the backyard of a private home located in a suburban area. The home owner had hired the tree trimmer to remove three trees and prune a fourth tree. The tree trimmer hired two groundman to help him with the job; the first groundman was a 20-year-old male who had worked for him for two months on weekends and usually worked as a waiter at a restaurant. Their usual second groundman was not available that day, so the first groundman recommended hiring his friend (the victim) to stand in for him.
The incident occurred on Sunday, October 2, 2005. The three-man crew arrived at the house at 9:00 a.m. that morning; the weather was warm and partly cloudy. The employer, who provided all the tools and equipment, instructed the two groundmen about the job before starting work. He also warned them to stay clear from the edge of the trees when he was working overhead. The crew started in the front of the property by removing one tree and pruning a second. The employer’s usual procedure was to climb the trees using climbing spikes and rope. He would take the tree down by first removing the branches from the base and continuing upward to the top. This left the tree stem, which he cut down in sections starting from the top and working his way down to the base. The groundmen were to trim and clear the branches and debris that fell on the ground. After finishing with the front, the crew moved to the back yard to remove three other trees. The crew used the same procedures, with the groundmen hauling the branches to a pile in the wooded back yard. The employer said the victim kept busy and seemed to enjoy the work. Sometime during the day the employer stated that there was a near-miss incident when a branch fell near the victim. The victim apologized and the two discussed the matter before returning to work. As the afternoon passed, the crew moved on to remove the last tree, a 50-foot-high sweetgum tree. The employer first removed the branches, then started to remove the top in sections. He first yelled a warning to the groundmen before cutting off the top of the tree. He then began to cut a three-foot-long, eight-inch-diameter section of trunk, using a step-cut which kept the section attached to the tree by a small amount of uncut wood. The employer stated that he had cut too deeply and the section was teetering. He looked down and saw the two groundmen standing away from the tree, then pushed the section in the direction of the wood pile. As the piece snapped away, he saw the victim walking under the tree and yelled “heads up!” and “look out!” The victim started to run, moving into the path of the falling section, which struck him on the back of the head.
The second groundman attempted to help the victim as the employer made his way down from the tree. The victim was unconscious and his breathing was very shallow. The crew yelled for help, and the homeowner called 911. The police received the first call at 4:02 p.m. and immediately dispatched a patrol car, which arrived a few minutes later at 4:05 p.m. The arriving police officers and EMS found the victim unresponsive, and continued CPR which had been started by area residents. The victim was evacuated by helicopter to the regional trauma center, where he was admitted with severe head injuries. His condition deteriorated and he was pronounced dead at 10:50 p.m., nearly seven hours after the incident. Back to TopRecommendations/DiscussionRecommendation #1: All employers and employees involved in tree work should receive training in arborist methods.Discussion: In this incident, the victim was a new employee working his first day on the job. Despite the warnings given by the employer, the victim's inexperience was evident in that he walked under the tree as the employer was working above. Tree trimming is a high-risk occupation, given the many uncontrolled situations and complex techniques and equipment used in the field. To reduce risks, NJ FACE recommends that anyone doing tree cutting work receive training specific to their field. For tree climbers and removers, this should include climbing and tree removal techniques, landscaping, equipment operation, electrical hazards, and other related subjects. For groundmen, it should include general working procedures, perimeter safety, machine use and safety (especially using wood chippers), use of personal protective equipment, and other related topics. New employees should be closely supervised. Employers should contact one of the professional arborists associations (see Recommended Resources) for more information.
|