Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Garcia
BSChE 3
1. A new worker was killed as he cleaned behind a hamburger stove at a fast food
restaurant. An investigation into his death revealed that the underside of the cable
connected to the hamburger cooker had worn away exposing a 12-mm length of
one live conductor. The worker died after touching the worn cable with cord.
During the investigation another cable attached to the adjacent cooker was found to
be worn.
Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- For me, I have a 50-50 judgment where both the worker and the
management are at fault, for they both have their own flaws and
contribution to how the accident happened.
Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- The worker who cleaned the machine, for he didnt follow the
proper procedure in cleaning a machine particularly one with
cutting blades.
3. A leading car manufacturer pleaded not guilty to charges arising from an industrial
accident in which a teenager's arm was ripped off. Investigations revealed that the
new worker was not informed of the risk associated with the conveyor belt, which
severed his arm.
The 19-year-old worker had only been at work for three days. He had lost his glove
from his right hand behind the conveyor belt and reached in to retrieve it. Previous
inspections before the incident identified risks associated with the machine. The
manufacturer faced $25, 000 in fines for not providing and maintaining machine
guards. The company provided safety training only during induction - a video and
pamphlets.
Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- For me, I have a 75-25 judgment for the management and the
worker. Because each of them has their own obligations on how
things to be done and should be done.