Cases Handled 

BUCKET TRUCK ELECTRICAL SHOCK ACCIDENTS
Home

Introduction
Insulated Aerial Lift Device Defined
Boom Contact Accident Defined

Aerial Lift Device Designs
Articulated Lift Devices
Telescopic Lift Devices
Digger Derrick

MADDDC
Defined
Purpose

Accident Studies
Industry Study
NIOSH

Lawyer Profile

Results From Cases Handled

Contact Us


List of notable boom tip contact accident cases handled by firm:

Since 1987, Sam Cherry and members of his firm have been involved in numerous insulated aerial lift device product liability claims throughout the United States.  This involvement has included the review of many potential claims that were found to be the result of defects in equipment as well as consultations on many cases where our firm did not take an active role in the litigation.  The listings found on this site are some of the notable cases that our firm has handled for victims (operators and family members) of bucket truck accidents. 

Past Cases:

Aultman vs. (Hi-Ranger) Terex-Telelect, Inc. -- $114,000,000 Jury Verdict.  Circuit Court of Hale County, Alabama.  This case involves the double amputation of a journeyman lineman employed by Black Warrior Electric Cooperative.  Aultman was engaged in distribution line maintenance work out of a Hi-Ranger insulated bucket truck when a 7,200 volt power line came in contact with exposed metallic componentry on the underside of the upper boom.  Mr. Aultman was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the accident.  This particular model was equipped with an isolated control handle and the control handle should not have become energized except for the fact that the employer had incorrectly replaced a non-conductive hose with a conductive hose leading into the control handle.  We were able to prove to a jury that this was a foreseeable event and that even with this maintenance error the accident would not have happened if the unit had been equipped with a non-conductive control handle.  The jury awarded $14,500,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000,000 in punitive damages.

Fenstermacher vs. Telelect, Inc. - $11,900,000 Jury Verdict.  This case involved the double amputation of a journeyman lineman employed by Kansas Power & Light.  Fenstermacher was engaged in a pole replacement procedure when a 7,200 volt power line came in contact with the jib cylinder anchor bracket on his bucket truck, which in turn energized all metal in the boom tip area, including the control handles.  He was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the occurrence and he did not use rubber line hoses.  Kansas is a comparative negligence state but the jury assigned no contributory negligence to the plaintiff and only 2% to his employer.  The $11.9 million verdict included a $3.75 million punitive damage assessment by the Trial Judge.  Under Kansas law the jury determines if punitive damages should apply and the Trial Judge assesses the amount of punitive damages.  We settled with the distributor and an independent testing firm for $215,000 prior to trial.

DePriest vs. Telelect, Inc. - $4,900,000 - Guaranteed Payout / $2,000,000 Present Value. This case involved a double amputation of a journeyman lineman employed by The City of Dothan, Alabama, Electrical Department.  DePriest was earning $26,000 annually at the time of this accident.  He was engaged in distribution line maintenance work when a 7,200 volt power line came in contact with the jib cylinder anchor bracket which in turn energized his control handle due to the bonding of all metal in the boom tip area of the product.  DePriest was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the occurrence and it was alleged by the defense that he was in violation of a number of safe work practices and misused the product.  The distributor, a safety management consulting firm for the City of Dothan and an independent testing firm were co-defendants and contributed to the settlement.

Moore vs. Telelect, Inc. - Undisclosed/Confidential.  U. S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.  This case occurred in Lovington, New Mexico and involved the death of a journeyman lineman employed by Lea County, New Mexico, Electrical Cooperative.  Robert Moore was engaged in distribution line maintenance work when a 7,200 volt power line came in contact with metallic componentry on the underside of the upper boom, which in turn energized his control handle due to the bonding of all metal in the boom tip area of the product.  Moore was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the occurrence.  The case was settled one week prior to trial.  The terms of the settlement are the subject of a non-disclosure agreement.

Tymchuk v. Altec Industries, Inc. - U. S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.  This case involves the death of a journeyman lineman employed by the City of Lakeland, Florida, Electrical Department.  He was operating an Altec AM-500 Articulated Aerial Lift Device when his control handle became hot due to inadvertent contact with an energized conductor and exposed metal near the end of the upper boom of the unit.  Tymchuk was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the accident.  The case was settled 2 weeks before trial for a confidential amount.

Anonymous vs. Anonymous - Undisclosed/confidential.  U. S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division.  This case involves the double amputation of a journeyman lineman employed by Entergy.  The lineman was operating a T-5050 Telelect at the time of the accident.  He was engaged in distribution line maintenance when metallic componentry on the underside of the upper boom came in contact with an energized conductor, which in turn energized his control handle.  The lineman was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the occurrence and it was alleged by the defense that he was in violation of a number of safe work practices and misused the product.

Canfield vs. Telelect, Inc. - Undisclosed/confidential.  U. S. District Court for the Northern Division of Ohio.  This case involved the death of an Ohio Edison lineman.  All metal near the end of the upper boom of his bucket truck became energized as a result of inadvertent contact between a 7,200 volt power line and exposed metal near the end of the upper boom.  Canfield was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the accident and was alleged to have violated a number of safe work practices.  The case was settled prior to the striking of a jury in Cleveland, Ohio.  The terms of the settlement are the subject of a non-disclosure agreement.

Crawford vs. Telelect, Inc. - $1,575,000.  Circuit Court for Hawkins County at Rogersville, Tennessee.  This case involves a single amputation of a lineman working for Holston County Electric Cooperative in Surgoinsville, Tennessee.  The Plaintiff was operating a T-5000 articulated aerial lift device manufactured by Telelect.  While the Plaintiff was engaged in maintenance work, a 7,200 volt power line came in contact with the jib cylinder anchor bracket on his unit which energized his control handle.  Crawford was not wearing rubber gloves nor using line covers at the time of the accident.  This case settled for $1.575 million.

Crosser vs. Telelect, Inc. - Undisclosed/confidential.  U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  This case involves the single amputation of a journeyman lineman employed by Ohio Edison.  He was operating a T-4000 articulated aerial lift device manufactured by Telelect when his control handle became energized due to inadvertent contact between exposed metal on the upper boom of the unit and an energized power line.  Crosser was not wearing his rubber gloves at the time of the accident.  The terms of the settlement are the subject of a non-disclosure agreement.  

Brown v. Terex-Telelect, Inc. - Undisclosed/confidential.  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.  Mr. Brown received catastrophic injuries to both arms, resulting in above the elbow amputation of his right arm and loss of use of his left arm.  The injuries occurred when an exposed screw on the underside of the upper boom came into contact with a 7600 volt energized line, energizing the main controls, and completing the circuit through Mr. Brown's arms and body through a grounded neutral line in Mr. Brown's left hand.

Pending Cases:

Walters v. Altec, Inc. - Case is pending in Federal Court in Jacksonville, Florida.  Mr. Walters received catastrophic injuries to both arms, ultimately requiring bilateral above the elbow amputations.  The injuries occurred when exposed or uncovered metallic components of the material handler mounted near the end of the upper boom came into contact with a 14,000 volt energized line, energizing the main controls, and completing the circuit through Mr. Walter's arms and body through a grounded neutral line in Mr. Walter's left hand.

Sawyer v. Altec, Inc. - Case is pending in Lawrence County, Alabama.  Mr. Sawyer received catastrophic injuries to both arms, resulting in severe scarring, disfigurement and physical impairment.  The injuries occurred when an exposed or uncovered metallic component on the underside of the upper boom cradle latch came into contact with an energized line, energizing the main controls, and completing the circuit through Mr. Sawyer's arms and body through a grounded neutral line in Mr. Sawyer's left hand.

Hill v. Altec, Inc. - Case is pending in Federal Court in Jacksonville, Florida.  Mr. Hill received severe debilitating injuries when his mobile aerial lift device shifted unexpectedly causing Mr. Hill to come into contact with an energized line, creating a circuit though his body.  

Slaughter v. Altec, Inc. - Case is pending in Federal Court in Atlanta, Georgia.  Preliminary investigation indicates that the controls of the unit Mr. Slaughter was operating became energized through contact with exposed metallic components associated with the material handler.  Mr. Slaughter died in the incident.

Everts v. Altec, Inc. - Case is pending in Federal Court in New York.  This involves a boom tip contact accident associated with the use of an AA-600.  The circumstances are very similar to the circumstances in the Walters and Slaughter cases.. 

Newman v. Hydra-Tech, Inc. - Case is pending in state court in Indiana.  Mr. Newman was working from a Hydra-Tech Lift-All bucket truck reconductoring a two-phase line into a three-phase line when his truck came into contact with an energized conductor, which energized the control handle. Mr. Newman lost both arms as a result of the accident.