does he have a case or not ?

[vidcc]

MORGANTOWN, West Virginia (AP) -- A man who says he was severely burned when a portable toilet exploded after he sat down and lit a cigarette is suing a general contractor and a coal company, accusing them of negligence.

John Jenkins, 53, and his wife, Ramona Jenkins, 35, of Brave, Pennsylvania, filed the suite Tuesday in county circuit court seeking $10 million in damages from Chisler Inc. and Eastern Associated Coal Corp.

The lawsuit claims Jenkins' face, neck, arms, torso and legs were severely burned last July after the cigarette ignited methane gas leaking from a pipe underneath the toilet unit.

"When I struck the lighter, the whole thing just detonated -- the whole top blew off," said Jenkins, a methane power plant operator with North West Fuels Development Inc. "I can't tell you if it blew me out the door or if I jumped out."

Eastern Associated owns the Blacksville property where the explosion occurred. Jenkins alleges that heavy equipment from Chisler Inc. ran over the pipelines before the explosion, causing the methane gas leak.

A call to the Charleston office of Peabody Energy, the parent company of Eastern Associated Coal, was not returned.

A man who answered the phone at Chisler's office in Fairview said the company would have no comment.

story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/03/toilet.lawsuit.ap/index.html)

Do you think he has a case?

[Guillaume]

No. The guy works in a methane power plant. He knows the smell of methane and should have smelled it in such an enclosed place as the crapper before lighting up.


Hell, he should be fined for smoking on the crapper when there were probably people waiting in front of the door to use it. :angry:

[GepperRankins]

i presume smoking isn't allowed so he should STFU

[vidcc]

No. The guy works in a methane power plant. He knows the smell of methane and should have smelled it in such an enclosed place as the crapper before lighting up.


Methane is odourless unless a chemical is added...however your point is valid.

i wonder if the company has a smoking policy.

[vidcc]

I found this as i remember something from mythbusters they claim myth busted (http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2005/2005-03-11.mythbusters_exploding_portapotty.html)

could cnn have a dud?

[GepperRankins]

the heat generated from a fag end may not be enough, but a lighter may be :unsure:

[Smith]

Woha, thats crazy, they did something like that on myth busters, but they said its not possible.

Guess it is.

[maebach]

its stupiditty. common sense was clearly not included in his decision to smoke.

[DarthInsinuate]

i think people have won cases for less, for example a fat lady injuring herself by sitting on a chair which couldn't bear her weight

[Wallace_Askew]

Then there is the case where the woman won like a million bucks cuz she burned herself mcdonalds coffee.

[Busyman]

No. The guy works in a methane power plant. He knows the smell of methane and should have smelled it in such an enclosed place as the crapper before lighting up.


Methane is odourless unless a chemical is added...however your point is valid.

i wonder if the company has a smoking policy.
Exactly. Cannot decide whether he has a case or not without this info.

If he is not supposed to smoke on the property then the case should be thrown out.

[Everose]

Damn. The last haven for cigarette smokers blown all to heck.

[bigboab]

MORGANTOWN, West Virginia (AP) -- A man who says he was severely burned when a portable toilet exploded after he sat down and lit a cigarette is suing a general contractor and a coal company, accusing them of negligence.

John Jenkins, 53, and his wife, Ramona Jenkins, 35, of Brave, Pennsylvania, filed the suite Tuesday in county circuit court seeking $10 million in damages from Chisler Inc. and Eastern Associated Coal Corp.

The lawsuit claims Jenkins' face, neck, arms, torso and legs were severely burned last July after the cigarette ignited methane gas leaking from a pipe underneath the toilet unit.

"When I struck the lighter, the whole thing just detonated -- the whole top blew off," said Jenkins, a methane power plant operator with North West Fuels Development Inc. "I can't tell you if it blew me out the door or if I jumped out."

Eastern Associated owns the Blacksville property where the explosion occurred. Jenkins alleges that heavy equipment from Chisler Inc. ran over the pipelines before the explosion, causing the methane gas leak.

A call to the Charleston office of Peabody Energy, the parent company of Eastern Associated Coal, was not returned.

A man who answered the phone at Chisler's office in Fairview said the company would have no comment.

story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/03/toilet.lawsuit.ap/index.html)

Do you think he has a case?

Absolutely no case. If it was a Methane producing factory there would have been a strictly no smoking on the premises policy as with paper factories etc. Plus the fact that he should have known the dangers and the smell of Methane. In fact the factory owners should counter sue him for curing his constipation.:lol:

[Guillaume]

No. The guy works in a methane power plant. He knows the smell of methane and should have smelled it in such an enclosed place as the crapper before lighting up.


Methane is odourless unless a chemical is added...however your point is valid.

's what I meant.
They always add the chemical for security reasons around here (for precisely that one: so that people may smell it and run the feck away if needs be) dunno about the US of A though, my fault. ;)

Edit: second point still stands though :snooty:

[JPaul]

I agree with the "smoking policy" point. It is all important whether he was actually allowed to smoke or not.

There is also a factor re what safety training he was given regarding the nature of methane and the potential dangers.

He appears to have a prime facie case, however further details would be required.

[lynx]

I would have thought there should be methane detectors in areas where a potential build up of methane is likely.

Was he smoking in a non-smoking area? This is of little relevance, it is possible to have a naked flame without smoking. In fact I would suggest that he had not even got as far as actually lighting the cigarette. It may result in a small reduction in the amount of any award.

Did he have a naked flame in a "no-flame" area? This is much more relevant. If so, he was contributory to the incident, and any award should be reduced.

1) If there was a likelihood of methane buildup then either the detectors were absent or not working correctly. The company was negligent and he has a valid claim.
1a) However, if he was in a no-flame area the reduction for contributory negligence would be very high.

2) If there was no likelihood of methane buildup then the location of the incident at a methane power plant is irrelevant. He has a claim in the same way as anyone would have a claim for such an incident in a public place.
2a) However, if the area was a no-flame zone, this would suggest that there was a likelihood of methane buildup. In that case the situation reverts back to situation 1a) but his contributory negligence is reduced because the company did not have a coherent policy.

[Proper Bo]

I would have thought there should be methane detectors in areas where a potential build up of methane is likely.

Was he smoking in a non-smoking area? This is of little relevance, it is possible to have a naked flame without smoking. In fact I would suggest that he had not even got as far as actually lighting the cigarette. It may result in a small reduction in the amount of any award.

Did he have a naked flame in a "no-flame" area? This is much more relevant. If so, he was contributory to the incident, and any award should be reduced.

1) If there was a likelihood of methane buildup then either the detectors were absent or not working correctly. The company was negligent and he has a valid claim.
1a) However, if he was in a no-flame area the reduction for contributory negligence would be very high.

2) If there was no likelihood of methane buildup then the location of the incident at a methane power plant is irrelevant. He has a claim in the same way as anyone would have a claim for such an incident in a public place.
2a) However, if the area was a no-flame zone, this would suggest that there was a likelihood of methane buildup. In that case the situation reverts back to situation 1a) but his contributory negligence is reduced because the company did not have a coherent policy.

in short; no if it was his fault:rolleyes:


:P

[lynx]

I would have thought there should be methane detectors in areas where a potential build up of methane is likely.

Was he smoking in a non-smoking area? This is of little relevance, it is possible to have a naked flame without smoking. In fact I would suggest that he had not even got as far as actually lighting the cigarette. It may result in a small reduction in the amount of any award.

Did he have a naked flame in a "no-flame" area? This is much more relevant. If so, he was contributory to the incident, and any award should be reduced.

1) If there was a likelihood of methane buildup then either the detectors were absent or not working correctly. The company was negligent and he has a valid claim.
1a) However, if he was in a no-flame area the reduction for contributory negligence would be very high.

2) If there was no likelihood of methane buildup then the location of the incident at a methane power plant is irrelevant. He has a claim in the same way as anyone would have a claim for such an incident in a public place.
2a) However, if the area was a no-flame zone, this would suggest that there was a likelihood of methane buildup. In that case the situation reverts back to situation 1a) but his contributory negligence is reduced because the company did not have a coherent policy.

in short; no if it was his fault:rolleyes:


:PSorry, I seem to have had a gas buildup. :pinch:

[Proper Bo]

in short; no if it was his fault:rolleyes:


:PSorry, I seem to have had a gas buildup. :pinch:

:frusty:

[Virtualbody1234]

in short; no if it was his fault:rolleyes:


:PSorry, I seem to have had a gas buildup. :pinch:
Methane gas?

[Proper Bo]

Sorry, I seem to have had a gas buildup. :pinch:
Methane gas?

Next up on mastermind; Virtualbody. Specialist subject: stating the feckin obvious:frusty:

[JPaul]

Was he smoking in a non-smoking area? This is of little relevance, it is possible to have a naked flame without smoking. In fact I would suggest that he had not even got as far as actually lighting the cigarette. It may result in a small reduction in the amount of any award.


I can't agree.

The fact that he was breaking the rules, a rule possibly put there to avoid such incidents, must have a bearing on his claim.

The fact that you can have a naked flame without smoking is not relevant to the "smoking policy" issue.

Tho' I agree it is relevant, in and of itself.

[lynx]

If there was a no-flame (I suppose it should be "no naked lights" but I didn't want to get Manker over-excited) rule then that would cover this instance, and the purpose of his use of the naked flame is unnecessary.

If there wasn't a "no naked lights" rule the company can't then use a "no smoking" rule as some sort of catch-all. Otherwise it could be argued that it was ok to have a naked light for some other purpose, and that would clearly be nonsense. If indeed the company foresaw this sort of possibility then it should have had a "no naked lights" rule and was therefore negligent.

Either way the "no smoking" rule is a side-issue not related to the company's liability.

Has it actually been established that he was smoking? He may simply have been sucking on the unlit cigarette as a placebo and at the same time admiring his newly acquired lighter. Finding a burnt cigarette afterwards is no proof, the guy himself was badly burned and cigarettes are much more flammable than people.

[manker]

but I didn't want to get Manker over-excitedYou're grammar simply isn't good enough to achieve that :snooty:

[JPaul]

I take your point that the whole naked flame thing is an issue and that in these circumstances a ban would be appropriate.

However it is quite possible to light a cigarette and smoke it without the involvement of flame. Some places I know of have hot wires which are used to light cigarettes (similar to a car cigarette lighter) They allow smoking in certain limited areas and do not allow any matches or lighters onto the site. So chaps must go to these places to light and smoke the cigarette. The cigarette then smolders with no flame.

In my opinion the fact that he was in the process of breaking a rule when he caused the incident must surely be a factor in apportioning blame.

[lynx]

but I didn't want to get Manker over-excitedYou're grammar simply isn't good enough to achieve that :snooty:Not surprising, she's been dead for over 30 years. Probably a little ripe even for you. :sick:

[JPaul]

You're grammar simply isn't good enough to achieve that :snooty:Not surprising, she's been dead for over 30 years. Probably a little ripe even for you. :sick:
:babumdish:

[manker]

Feck's sake. This time last month, mod rodding was easy :(

[JPaul]

Feck's sake. This time last month, mod rodding was easy :(

If you try to rod a mod he may mod your rod.

[manker]

Feck's sake. This time last month, mod rodding was easy :(

If you try to rod a mod he may mod your rod.He'd have to get his hands on it first :naughty:


Question; TOtally unrelated but I know how vid is extremely magnanimous when his threads go off-topic - I've just got a new phone, hawt it is, but I've no clue how to work it.

Should I spend this last 30 mins before I go out trying to figure it out so all the local chavs can see for themselves and be amazed, or would it be more prudent to carry on posting pish and prolly be a bit late.

[JPaul]

If you try to rod a mod he may mod your rod.He'd have to get his hands on it first :naughty:


Question; TOtally unrelated but I know how vid is extremely magnanimous when his threads go off-topic - I've just got a new phone, hawt it is, but I've no clue how to work it.

Should I spend this last 30 mins before I go out trying to figure it out so all the local chavs can see for themselves and be amazed, or would it be more prudent to carry on posting pish and prolly be a bit late.
I think it's only fair that you learn how to work it properly.

That way they can watch you using it, prior to stealing it.

Seems only right.

[manker]

He'd have to get his hands on it first :naughty:


Question; TOtally unrelated but I know how vid is extremely magnanimous when his threads go off-topic - I've just got a new phone, hawt it is, but I've no clue how to work it.

Should I spend this last 30 mins before I go out trying to figure it out so all the local chavs can see for themselves and be amazed, or would it be more prudent to carry on posting pish and prolly be a bit late.
I think it's only fair that you learn how to work it properly.

That way they can watch you using it, prior to stealing it.

Seems only right.Okay, I'm multi-tasking as we speak :naughty:

[JPaul]

I think it's only fair that you learn how to work it properly.

That way they can watch you using it, prior to stealing it.

Seems only right.Okay, I'm multi-tasking as we speak :naughty:
Can you do other things while you are multi-tasking.

[manker]

You askin' :naughty:


I would but my grooming schedule is tied up :gimp:

[JPaul]

You askin' :naughty:


I would but my grooming schedule is tied up :gimp:
:denied:

[SpatulaGeekGirl]

The guy was stupid for smoking and if there is a no-smoking policy he should be
punished accordingly. He should, however, also have the right to sue as it is negligent
to overlook a methane leakage in a public toilet.

[Virtualbody1234]

Methane gas?

Next up on mastermind; Virtualbody. Specialist subject: stating the feckin obvious:frusty:
Speaking about the obvious... That looks like blatant trolling. :ohmy:

[JPaul]

Next up on mastermind; Virtualbody. Specialist subject: stating the feckin obvious:frusty:
Speaking about the obvious... That looks like blatant trolling. :ohmy:
I don't think blatant will mind.

[Virtualbody1234]

Speaking about the obvious... That looks like blatant trolling. :ohmy:
I don't think blatant will mind.
Probably not.

[JPaul]

I don't think blatant will mind.
Probably not.
:D

So everything is good

[Virtualbody1234]

Probably not.
:D

So everything is good
Absolutely! How about you?

[JPaul]

:D

So everything is good
Absolutely! How about you?
Fan-tastic

It's Samedi soir, I am watching the Republic of Eire play Puntsphere on t'telly and I have more pomme than you can shake a pomme tree at.

[Virtualbody1234]

Cool. It's Samedi apres-midi (4:35 PM) and beautiful sunshine here.

Great for relaxing in the backyard or cruising the countryside roads. :cool:

http://www.gnb.ca/0113/fed-prov/images/large-images/Quebec-SaintJacques.jpg

[JPaul]

Feck, those chaps are all driving on t'wrong side of t'road.

Do you live in Mentalistland.

[Virtualbody1234]

Non non non. You're the ones driving on the wrong side!

[bigboab]

Non non non. You're the ones driving on the wrong side!

In the UK there is no law stating which side of the road you must drive on.:)
<puts wooden spoon back in the kitchen>:)

[Virtualbody1234]

Non non non. You're the ones driving on the wrong side!

In the UK there is no law stating which side of the road you must drive on.:)

Oh. That must be Mentalistland!

[bigboab]

In the UK there is no law stating which side of the road you must drive on.:)

Oh. That must be Mentalistland!

Not really. If you think about it, it is logical that you cant impose such a law.:)

[Virtualbody1234]

I guess it's like trying to make it unlawful to smoke in a portable toilet. :rolleyes:

[bigboab]

I guess it's like trying to make it unlawful to smoke in a portable toilet. :rolleyes:

:lol:


Yes. There are too many exceptions to make it law. So instead they advise you to drive on the left/right where applicable. Its like the Highway code in the UK. It is not the law. But if you cause an accident by not obeying it then you are charged with careless/reckless driving. Strange but true.:lol:

[GepperRankins]

apparently you can overtake on double white lines, so long as you don't cross them

:genious:

[bigboab]

apparently you can overtake on double white lines, so long as you don't cross them

:genious:

You would have to be on a bike or overtaking a bike if it was single lane.:lol:

[Virtualbody1234]

http://www.mrmethane.com/

[JPaul]

Rules for pedestrians

1 You MUST NOT take any responsibility for your own safety. Feel free to step out into the road without looking if

* the pavement is busy and you are in a hurry
* you are drunk.

Law RVLR regs 18 & 24

18 Crossings. Never use a pedestrian crossing if you can avoid it. It is much better to save yourself 20 paces and cross on a nearby blind corner. This is particularly recommended if you are accompanied by young children of an impressionable age.


Rules for cyclists

46 At night your cycle MUST have front and rear lights lit unless

* you can't be bothered to fit some
* the batteries have run out
* you mostly ride on the footpath anyway.

Law RVLR regs 18 & 24

50 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals except where they would cause you to slow down or stop.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD reg 10(1)

55 Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to position yourself ahead of all the other vehicles that have just waited patiently to overtake you. Move away from the red light slowly and in the centre of the road to ensure that as few of those vehicles as possible get through while the light is green.

Image showing advanced stop line for cyclists

That's it. Take your time...


67 When the road gets narrow enough to make it impossible for following cars to overtake you, you MUST stop pedalling.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD reg 10, reg 68(1)


Signals

90 Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there or

* to indicate that you are letting someone out of a junction
* to let the idiot coming the other way know that they haven't dipped their headlights
* if someone cuts you up
* if you see a mate driving the other way.



91 If another driver flashes his headlights at you when you are waiting to pull out of a junction, take this as a signal to slip into a coma and not notice.

92 The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence, or if

* someone cuts you up
* you see a mate
* you are a taxi driver making a pick-up in a quiet residential street.

You MUST NOT use your horn in a built up area between the hours of 11.30pm and 7.00am unless

* someone cuts you up
* you see a mate
* you are a taxi driver making a pick-up in a quiet residential street.

Law CUR reg 99


Lighting requirements


94 Front fog lights may be used

* to demonstrate to other drivers that you are not driving the poverty spec version of your car
* if you think they look cool
* if you find using the fog light switch exciting
* if you can't be bothered to replace that dead headlight bulb
* if you've fitted green sidelight bulbs which other road users would not be able to see if you used your headlights.



95 Rear fog lights may be used

* in reasonably heavy rain (particularly on motorways)
* if it was a bit misty two weeks ago
* if your bathroom mirror was steamed up when you got out of the shower this morning.




105 Stopping distances. Drive at a speed that will give you no chance of stopping within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

* massively over-estimate the braking ability of your vehicle
* give no thought to increasing the distance between yourself and the car in front on wet roads.


Multi-lane carriageways

116 On a two-lane dual carriageway you should stay in the left-hand lane until you need to overtake. Once in the overtaking lane do not return to the left-hand lane. It's for lorries. Don't worry about holding up the vehicles behind you – they're going too fast anyway.

117 On a three-lane dual carriageway or motorway use the middle lane as much as possible, even if you haven't passed a slower-moving vehicle for miles. Use your mirrors regularly to check for vehicles travelling noticeably faster than yourself. Whenever possible move into the right-hand lane to slow them down, only returning to the middle lane when you have overtaken another vehicle travelling 1mph slower than yourself.


Overtaking

139 Overtake only when it is slightly dangerous to do so. You should

* follow the lorry you are stuck behind at a distance of two car lengths for at least six miles
* regularly check for a suitable overtaking opportunity by periodically swerving out into the path of oncoming traffic. Do this in a sufficiently erratic fashion to ensure that the drivers of any following vehicles are certain that you never check your mirrors
* never check your blind spot
* ensure that you are in a gear that provides as little acceleration as possible.



144 Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, speed up slightly to make the gap in front of your vehicle as small as possible. Flash your headlights when the other driver has completed their perfectly safe manoeuvre.

145 Hold up a long queue of traffic whenever possible, especially if you are driving a vehicle perfectly capable of travelling a lot faster. Check your mirrors frequently, and gain great pleasure from the large number of people you are inconveniencing. What's the hurry, anyway? Never pull in to let traffic pass.


Road junctions

147 When pulling out of a junction with 'Give Way' markings you MUST edge the nose of your car out into the road you wish to join. Under no circumstances should you lean forward in your seat to see around an obstacle. Wait for a particularly short gap in the traffic before you move off, then accelerate as slowly as possible to enable following traffic to catch up.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1), reg 16(1) & 25

150 Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road. You MUST enter the box regardless of whether your exit road or lane is clear. Whenever possible, queue right through the box to block the progress of other drivers, even if enabling them to proceed would not affect your own journey.
Law TSRGD regs 10(1) & 29(2)

Image showing a successfully blocked box junction

Well done, brown cars!


151 Where there are two lanes to go straight ahead from a set of traffic lights you MUST join the queue in the right-hand lane if

* you are driving a van
* you are driving any vehicle with a 0–60 time greater than 20 seconds
* you never use more than 50 per cent of the accelerator's travel.



155 Turning right. Before you turn right you should

* completely ignore your mirrors
* give a right-turn signal only when you have nearly finished braking
* take up a position slap-bang in the middle of your side of the road
* never leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left.

Image showing a vehicle obstructing traffic

Position your vehicle correctly to obstruct traffic



Roundabouts

162 Signals and position. Unless you are taking your driving test.

When taking the first exit

* approach in the left-hand lane
* don't signal – keep other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout guessing.

When taking any other exit before the last exit

* approach in the left-hand lane
* straddle both lanes while on the roundabout
* ignore your blind spot
* signal left just as you exit the roundabout.

When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, always remember that any road markings are there purely to trick you. Choose the next lane to the left instead. You know best.

You MUST NOT indicate on a roundabout if

* you were given your driving licence during the War
* you've never questioned why people always sound their horn at you on roundabouts
* you can't be bothered to read the section about how to indicate on roundabouts
* you are a selfish individual who couldn't give a damn about other drivers whose own actions depend upon your signal.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 101(1), 161(1)

164 Mini-roundabouts. Approach these as if they are not roundabouts at all, either

* in a state of blind panic
* as if the road still has the same layout that it had before they installed that new-fangled little roundabout thing in 1982.

All vehicles MUST bounce over the central markings as if you are physically incapable of turning the steering wheel.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)

165 At double mini-roundabouts prepare to lose your no claims bonus.


Driving in adverse weather conditions


206 Drive extremely carefully when the roads are icy. Remember to nail the gas if you get stuck on an uphill slope. That'll fix it.


Annex 6. Vehicle maintenance

Tyre pressures
Check your vehicle's tyre pressures weekly unless

* you don't know what pressure is
* you think that's what MOTs are for
* you fancy your chances controlling a blow-out at 80mph.



Other problems
If your vehicle

* pulls to one side when braking, it is most likely to be a brake fault or incorrectly inflated tyres. Ignore it – it'll probably go away
* continues to bounce after pushing down on the front or rear, its shock absorbers are worn. You are unlikely to ever know this, though; why would you be pressing down on your vehicle?
* smells of anything unusual such as burning rubber, petrol or over-heating electrics, it's time to buy a new air-freshener.

[bigboab]

Remember a pedestrian is just someone who has found a parking space.:blink:

[Virtualbody1234]

Double white lines means "Change lanes without signaling".