Electrocution case



insted
With SDS drills now commonplace, I bet most holes go most of the 100mm or 150mm that the drill bit allows before the inexperienced user has time to stop. I doubt there are many forms of protection that would stop a 5kG SDS either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Protection isn't meant to protect (that's an unrealistic expectation) - it's meant to warn you that you've hit it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The real question here (from our viewpoint) is whether Article P would have been any help.
We have standards for this work. Following them would have made this accident far less likely - you can still puncture a cable, but you have to try pretty hard. The standards weren't followed though - the only remaining question is whether this fitter would have been seen as any more "competent" under Article P than a DIY installer?
Cable detectors are useful, but they're not a solution of themselves. This rack was installed by the husband, and banning all minor DIY except by qualified kitchen fitters is a "solution" I think few would seriously consider. The fault was primarily, and blame-wise, with the bad cabling and not with the rack-hanging.
I'm still unconvinced that this new legislation achieves anything. When the professionals can deliver a crude bodge like this, it's not the DIY installer who needs to be tied up in red tape.
--
Smert' spamionam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:48:33 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:

Hear, hear. I hope they can track down the installer and/or his company and slap a manslaughter(*) charge on them or at the very least neglegance.
(*) Or whatever the correct legal word is for causing such a death.
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Liquorice wrote:

I'm not quite sure why the press reports make a point of not naming the firm but given that people had got shocks or tingles off this rack before I think that what you suggest is OTT. If it were a public building and it came out at an inquest that the 'manager' knew of a potential hazard and had failed to do anything about it, then it would surely be him on trial.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A building manager should be properly trained to assess health and safety risks as part of his overall responsibility for which he/she is paid. In a domestic situation, the occupants are not deemed to be so qualified and may need to rely on the competence of contractors carrying out improvement work to determine what is safe or not.
Christian.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
All critics of this installation are ill informed. The poor womans death was avoidable, as is all domestic electrocutions All house holders know that electricity is dangerous but choose not to have their system checked and modernised usually because of the cost. Well here we have an example of the cost, a womans life. A modern electrical installation to BS7671 is safe. The choice to have one or not is a free choice, the owner of this home chose not to. jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12 Oct 2004 12:55:08 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Jim) wrote:

The cable was wrongly installed by the fitter and by virtue of being at an angle the installation was not compliant with BS7671.
However, even if it had been, the person installing the rack could, by not being aware of the cable routing, have drilled into the side of the cable.
So while it's true that an installation to the standard can be considered safe as far as it goes, there is nothing that will protect those who are not aware of where to expect that cables might be.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim wrote:

(Jim is also a critic. Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, thus Socrates is mortal. What, dear readers, can we similarly and syllogistically conclude about Jim? ;-)

Nah. Deliberate suicides are not avoidable; nor can extreme stupidity be defended against under the engineering balance which the Regs (thank gawd) represent. It'll be a sad sad day when the IEE engineering regs-writers get replaced by CYA lawyers...

You appear to be claiming that a 60quid periodic inspection would have found the fault which proved fatal in this case. I dispute such a claim - I don't believe that it's standard operating procedure to measure the potential wrt earth of every bit of metalwork in every room (or even just in the kitchen) which isn't obviously part of an appliance. In this case, there was a metal cutlery/utensil rack above the cooker; what proportion of sparkies doing a periodic inspection would have thought to measure its potential (or even wave a voltstick in its direction)?
We've noted that an RCD on the relevant circuit would've prevented this fatality. But BS7671 doesn't necessarily require that the final circuit on which a cooker hood sits is RCD protected. It will be if it's fed off a downstairs ring, by virtue of the "reasonably foreseen to supply portable appliances outside the equipotential zone" rule; but not if it's fed off a lighting circuit (not uncommon, nothing wrong with it), or off a radial dedicated to fixed appliances in the kitchen.

"Safe" is a relative, not an absolute, term. It's clear that (as is usually the case with accidents in reasonably-managed situations) multiple factors contributed. Here, they were: initial poor routing of the cooker hood cable; failure of the householder to check for buried cables when installing the metal rack on the wall; failure of the occupants to react more decisively to the "tingle" they felt. We can argue the toss about the relative contributions of these factors. But only the first of these is a Regs-compliance issue, and that (as I've argued above) would *not* be picked up by an after-the-fact inspection, as the poorly routed cable was not visible. The other two factors concern education and common sense in the general population; a purely technical fix is not appropriate (no, not even mandating "every circuit shall have its own RCBO" - as has been pointed out many times over the years in this group, loss of lighting during fires causes more fatalities and injuries than are prevented by RCD protection on lighting circs).
Stefek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:22:10 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote:

Quite, it appears that the cable was not installed to the regs, ie not within the H or V bands from a visible fitting. The DIYer was not aware of the problem as it developed over time as the screw chaffed through the insulation due to small movements from the rack as it was used.
Who ever installed that cable not within the accepted areas carries most of the responsiblity for this death. It's short cuts and other slip shod work from builders or contractors (I hesitate to call them "professionals") that tends to make me DIY.
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From the details given, it's impossible to say if the electrical installation was at faut or if the kitchen isntaller (or possibly DIYer) was at fault.
The electrical cable may well have been installed correctly, but the kitchen installer could have made the error of not realising that a cable ran horizontally or vertically from a fitting.
If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack without electrocuting themself.
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
steve%@malloc.co.uk says...

Presumably a loose screw fretted its way through the insulation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The screw did frett through the insulation according to the reports, and the kitchen was fitted by some builders from huddersfield, acordiing to the Telegraph
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If the drill bit just hit the live wire you might not get a shock because
a) Quite likely holding onto plastics parts of drill
b) Possibly not touching any other earthed item.
Birds sit on live wires everyday without ill effect!
Michael Chare
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, then you have a screw to get into place while holding onto the metal rack. How does that work?
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Even if the screw connected the live wire to the plate rack, and you touched the rack, you would only get a shock if current could flow through your body to earth. It likely would not do this if you were wearing rubber soled shoes and standing on a non conducting dry floor.
I once rented a flat with a faulty cooker. After a while I noticed that I got a shock if I put a pan one on of the rings whilst still holding onto a tap.
Michael Chare
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes but I suspect that this time she had a grip on the rack which caused muscle contraction and then her leg may well have been forced into contact that bit more with the earthed dishwasher.
All due to the duff electrical cable routing installation in the first place. IMHO that is..
And had a whole house RCD been fitted she'd be around today.....

Possible wet hands?..
--
Tony Sayer


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last screw, with it sitting on the bit of the screwdriver held in aforementioned insulared drill?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or plastic wall plug, screw a bit too long, only touches the wire on the last turn or two by which time you're only holding the insulated handle of the screwdriver. Still, you'd think the installer would give the rack a bit of a tug just to make sure it was firmly fixed.
--
Richard Porter
Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heh heh. But didn't it say it was movement of the screw which had frayed through the insulation?.
Of course, anyone with sense would have moved the rack a half inch so the screw touched the neutral...
--
*Don't use no double negatives *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.