does he have a case or not ?

Quote:

---

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

Do you think he has a case?

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:

i presume smoking isn't allowed so he should STFU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

i wonder if the company has a smoking policy.

I found this as i remember something from mythbusters they claim myth busted

could cnn have a dud?

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

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

Guess it is.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:


:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:


:P

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee

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


:P

---

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

---

:frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee

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


:P

---

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

---

Methane gas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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

---

Methane gas?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the lynx effect

but I didn't want to get Manker over-excited

---

You're grammar simply isn't good enough to achieve that :snooty:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the lynx effect

but I didn't want to get Manker over-excited

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

You askin' :naughty:


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

You askin' :naughty:


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

---

:denied:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Speaking about the obvious... That looks like blatant trolling. :ohmy:

---

I don't think blatant will mind.

---

Probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I don't think blatant will mind.

---

Probably not.

---

:D

So everything is good