Specialty Chemical Accident Investigation

This expert was retained by lawyers for a specialty chemical manufacturer in Ohio to investigate the causes of an accident that resulted in injury to a plant operator. A reactor with a hot liquid overflowed and severely burned an operator who was under the vessel at the time. OSHA had investigated the accident and filed a report.

The plaintiff was suing the manufacturer under an Intentional Tort provision under Ohio law which enables an injured worker to sue an employer directly if it was claimed that the employer acted intentionally to injure the worker. Under this provision the employer is not protected by Workers Compensation

For the investigation this associate reviewed the process, piping and mechanical documents that described the plant process which included the reactor. This associate reviewed all of the control documents and the electrical and instrumentation devices that controlled the operation of the reactor. In addition, all of the plant safety devices that were designed to prevent accidents were reviewed, as was the operation of the system in practice and the plant safety practices. This associate reviewed CFR 29 OSHA 1910.119 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals and the facility organization and practice to enforce these standards, and physically examined the entire process and mechanical systems, looked at every vessel, valve and fitting in the system and made sketches of the process system.

This Associate interviewed the plant management and chemical operators, and reviewed the plaintiff's training and responsibilities to determine why he was under the vessel at the time of the accident. "What if" studies were conducted to review all possible scenarios that could cause the vessel to overflow.

This Expert read and reviewed all of the depositions from all of the interested parties.

A final report of the investigation was written. This report included the plant's status in compliance with regulations, the status of the facility at the time of the accident, the knowledge and training of the injured operator and a determination of the exact and only cause of the accident. The report concluded that the accident could only have been caused by someone opening a manual valve under the vessel. The injured operator was the only person under the vessel at the time of the accident.

The case was settled out of court shortly after the report was filed. No instance of deliberate intention on the part of the manufacturer was proven.

To see the resume of the expert associated with this case study, see the link below.