Comments for Legal News http://lawzilla.com/blog Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:24:18 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 Comment on People v. Rene Fuentes by Mayra Fuentes http://lawzilla.com/blog/people-v-rene-fuentes/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Mayra Fuentes Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:24:18 +0000 http://lawzilla.com/blog/?p=436#comment-210 I am Rene Fuentes' sister, I would like to thank you for you for shining a light on not only my brothers, but my family's misfortune w this unfair conviction. I would like to know how you came upon my brothers case and what lead your organization to publishing his case? That and much more for we are still searching for a way to prove his innocence. It would be greatly appreciated if you could respond back to me promptly. Sincerely Mayra, A Fuentes I am Rene Fuentes’ sister, I would like to thank you for you for shining a light on not only my brothers, but my family’s misfortune w this unfair conviction. I would like to know how you came upon my brothers case and what lead your organization to publishing his case? That and much more for we are still searching for a way to prove his innocence. It would be greatly appreciated if you could respond back to me promptly.

Sincerely
Mayra, A Fuentes

]]> Comment on People v. Richman Em by ana davila http://lawzilla.com/blog/people-v-richman-em/comment-page-1/#comment-208 ana davila Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:08:10 +0000 http://lawzilla.com/blog/?p=415#comment-208 Our lives walk in pain every day ...... god is the one that is letting us , sorry i can not even say anything else ... Our lives walk in pain every day ……
god is the one that is letting us ,
sorry i can not even say anything else …

]]> Comment on Seabright Insurance Company v. US Airways by Fred Gillett http://lawzilla.com/blog/seabright-insurance-company-v-us-airways/comment-page-1/#comment-207 Fred Gillett Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:03:31 +0000 http://lawzilla.com/blog/?p=1155#comment-207 I am having difficulties in the conflicting statements in the evidence. "that the nip points were 'fully exposed and a hazard to anyone who worked or passed through the area,' ” and that “[t]he lack of required guarding, space limitation restricting Anthony Verdon’s available range of body motion and corresponding body positions, along with the sub-standard lighting created a dangerous condition . . ." In reading the description of the work area Verdon was in an area that was very restrictive in body motion, wherein the conflict comes, it would not be an area where an in-run nip point on a conveyor system might create a "hazard to anyone who worked or passed through the area." Guarding is required where it reasonably expected that a person passing through or working in vicinity to moving machinery might come in inadvertent physical contact with exposed parts which could cause injury. "Inadvertent physical contact with power transmission equipment, prime movers, machines or machine parts which could result from slipping, falling, sliding, tripping or any other unplanned action or movement." and "Guarded by Location. The moving parts are so located by their remoteness from floor, platform, walkway, or other working level, or by their location with reference to frame, foundation or structure as to remove the likelihood of accidental contact." CACT8section3941 With the evidence provided, and without benefit of photos of the area and knowledge of access to the area of exposure, the question arises as to whether it was guarded by location. Maintenance personnel, for inspection and/or maintenance, enter areas and gain access to areas of a machine that no one else would come into inadvertent contact. All maintenance personnel must be adequately trained and constantly vigilent so as to identify areas that could cause entrapment or deleterious contact. Maintenance personnel are exempt from lock-out procedures and guarding standards when inspecting, tuning and some forms of maintenance on equipment that must be running during such activities . It is my opinion tha if the area was "guarded by Location" then the machine owner and or users would not have an legal requirement to guard beyond inadvertent contact location. I am having difficulties in the conflicting statements in the evidence. “that the nip points were ‘fully exposed and a hazard to anyone who worked or passed through the area,’ ” and that “[t]he lack of required guarding, space limitation restricting Anthony Verdon’s available range of body motion and corresponding body positions, along with the sub-standard lighting created a dangerous condition . . .”

In reading the description of the work area Verdon was in an area that was very restrictive in body motion, wherein the conflict comes, it would not be an area where an in-run nip point on a conveyor system might create a “hazard to anyone who worked or passed through the area.”

Guarding is required where it reasonably expected that a person passing through or working in vicinity to moving machinery might come in inadvertent physical contact with exposed parts which could cause injury. “Inadvertent physical contact with power transmission equipment, prime movers, machines or machine parts which could result from slipping, falling, sliding, tripping or any other unplanned action or movement.” and “Guarded by Location. The moving parts are so located by their remoteness from floor, platform, walkway, or other working level, or by their location with reference to frame, foundation or structure as to remove the likelihood of accidental contact.” CACT8section3941

With the evidence provided, and without benefit of photos of the area and knowledge of access to the area of exposure, the question arises as to whether it was guarded by location.

Maintenance personnel, for inspection and/or maintenance, enter areas and gain access to areas of a machine that no one else would come into inadvertent contact. All maintenance personnel must be adequately trained and constantly vigilent so as to identify areas that could cause entrapment or deleterious contact. Maintenance personnel are exempt from lock-out procedures and guarding standards when inspecting, tuning and some forms of maintenance on equipment that must be running during such activities .

It is my opinion tha if the area was “guarded by Location” then the machine owner and or users would not have an legal requirement to guard beyond inadvertent contact location.

]]>