Lawyer Reviews FATAL GAS LEAK (Odessa, Tx)

[@slebetman]

Like - because you won the bet

[@Kaanfight]

Well, can’t argue with that

[@Hotmaildotcomz]

@@Kaanfight it depends

[@daffytheuglyduckling4258]

@@Hotmaildotcomz cuz… it always depends

[@xxcattoxx544]

@@daffytheuglyduckling4258 📮

[@knighthunter1791]

@@daffytheuglyduckling4258 it just depends

[@chrisclaridge2521]

The saddest part of this is those kids will soon enough be able to find these breakdowns of how their parents died and how easy it could've been prevented.

[@m.k.mcgill]

I started thinking about that when I saw the original video. Imagine in 5-10 years when the video or one of the breakdowns randomly shows up in everyone’s recommended feed and one of those kids comes across it (if they haven’t already come across it by chance or searching for it) how upsetting that would be..

[@dont4get2Bawesome]

Hopefully one day those kids will be able to realize that videos like this are an important part of making sure that this doesn't happen again. Better they should feel some echo of that pain then somebody else have to feel the way that they feel.

[@ianthompson2802]

@@dont4get2Bawesome I think it's even worse to know that a safety regulation was written in your parents blood. It is something to know that someone got really hurt to get safety rules in place. It's another to know the person that got hurt. It's real bad when you were there and you are reminded of what happened from the safety rules on the wall

[@DesignByKirk]

NO! that's not the saddest part. the SADDEST part is that this POS company allowed this to happen in the first place and now these children have no parents.

[@Twilek-it6sm]

im just so sad because of this. companies need to work on this

[@CharlieTheTexan]

I'm still out here in Odessa, and I remember when this happened. My heart broke for those kids. After this happened, I told my wife to never come looking for me if I don't respond to calls. I work in nitrogen services (which tends to keep me away from H2S unless I'm on a location), but accidents can always happen, whether it be a nitrogen accident or H2S leak or some mechanical failure or whatever. I told her to stay home and let someone else find me, because I would hate it if she or my children were to be involved in something like that. If I'm not mistaken, the in-laws are still fighting each other for custody of those children now. Judge Sara Billingsley does open court on Facebook Live, and my wife saw it on there. As if losing both parents that quickly wasn't bad enough, they now have to go through that. I ask yall to pray for them if you do pray at all. That company is at fault more than enough to take care of that man's children. The wife should've never been able to gain access into such a known dangerous area like that, especially with children in tow.

[@bobbygetsbanned6049]

I'm sure the company is at fault enough to pay a lot of money which is the same reason the family is fighting over the money, I mean kids, it's the kids they want.

[@happyogre]

Well, just be careful, Nitrogen is a colorless, odorless gas...or liquid that changes to a gas readily in atmosphere, it displaces atmosphere, hypoxia is a real thing around nitrogen. It can be just as deadly as a toxic gas.

[@richlaue]

The parents will should have settled where the kids will go.

[@TheMrcbritt2]

@@richlaue a will does not definitively settle child custody. A court can set aside such conditions of the will if they think the children would be better served elsewhere. In family law it is the best interests of the child standard and not the wishes of deceased parents that govern

[@danialmoser2573]

As an Odessa resident and former oilfield hand, 90 company 10 employee. H2S gas is commonly known but its lethality is porely understood. It takes very little H2S to kill you.

[@masonmiller9658]

Poorly

[@authgg]

@@masonmiller9658 nobody cares

[@thelordz33]

My dad used to work oilfield. He said if you could smell it, it was probably too late.

[@notsam498]

One of the scariest things about h2s is it's ability to kill your sense of smell. I think at something obscene low (qualified comments welcome) like less than 1ppm it can be smelled And something like 20ppm begins toxic effects. A mere 300 ppm less than .03% can kill... The stuff is pretty darn scary.

[@jamesduncan6729]

Poorly*

[@slywolf1972]

The only thing stopping someone from entering this place was an extremely old and rusty sign among dozens of other severely degraded warnings that look barely legible.

[@ididthisonpulpous6526]

I worked as a temp doing janitorial work at a huge Shell Oil facility in Oklahoma for a few months when I was younger. I had been working there for several weeks when I was on a smoke break talking to one of the refinery workers. He asked why I was over in some area and I was like "My bosses boss asked me to go over and do clean up." He was like "Did they give you a chemical safety briefing?" I was like "No." He got instantly angry. He hauled me in his truck to the front gate and called on the intercom for my manager. He was like "You could have killed this kid sending him over there!" I was told not to go and work in area with the markings, which my manager knew, but the lady who had training was sick that day.... so.... I was called by the temp agency and given a warning for violating company policy and I was passed over for permanent employment there...

[@GustavusAdolphus2]

For the husband I would say 10% on him 90% on the company and honestly that's being generous to the company. For the wife it was entirely the company's fault

[@ThePeterDislikeShow]

Really? I'm the kind of guy who gets nervous using household chemicals so I can't imagine forgetting an important tool. But perhaps someone who works with it daily can get complacent.

[@a-10warthog23]

@@ThePeterDislikeShow Yeah, but I think 10% fault is plenty on the worker. Of course he'd understand there's a danger but the company should prepare for human error to some extent. The fact that the alarm systems totally failed (in MULTIPLE aspects, primarily the calls and beacon) to alert the worker, and the assumption that the worker was both improperly trained and hasn't experienced the dangers of this gas before, places way more responsibility on the company. But I do understand what you mean.

[@lisztresurrected9438]

Whenever I had to go on site that any kind of gas, I had to sit through 2 hours worth of LOTO and safety procedure, even if I wasn't touching it. That's as a contractor. These guys had no written procedure. That's suicide.

[@M90thYou]

Or murder

[@maj.romuloortiz7832]

@@M90thYou Negligent Manslaughter to be more correct which is worse to me. Almost got badly injured last Friday because of someone elses stupidity

[@oskary2833]

It blows my mind the initial alarm didn't have a return signal to showed that it even fucking worked. As a helicopter tech every sensor has a fail signal

[@lisztresurrected9438]

@@oskary2833 A lot of fire alarm systems in older buildings don't have monitors. Which obviously is a problem. At best they'll say the sensor is detached, but that's meaningless on a photoelectric alarm. I imagine it's the same here.

[@nathanielkidd2840]

That this happened in 2018 too. I’ve had to spend multiple days in classes before stepping foot in facilities in Tx before 2018. Almost nothing presented had anything to do with my job. I don’t do hot work, I’m not an equipment operator, nor mechanic. I, largely, don’t go anywhere near the active parts of facilities, but they make me do that stuff anyway, because idiots forget to wear their PPE, or get complacent, and forget that the whole place will explode into a fireball.

[@itzipocalyspe9396]

Overall I’d say the company was around 90-95% responsible for this accident. I’d say at least 90% responsible for the workers death because although he made a number of mistakes I’d say it’s foreseeable for a worker to make those mistakes with inadequate training and with no formal procedures. I’d say they are 100% responsible for the spouses death because even though she shouldn’t have entered the premise, their failure to set up basic security to prevent non-workers from entering the potentially dangerous pump house is indefensible. It’s good and lucky that the children made it out alive and it seems they didn’t suffer injuries. 90/10 company / worker 100/0 company / wife

[@nikkino5470]

Yes! That’s what I came up with, too!

[@GustavusAdolphus2]

Yeah this pretty much summarizes what I thought

[@TexasLegionaryGuard]

I agree but also disagree because yes the company should of been on top of the equipment working but the worker didn’t close the gate, didn’t report anything, didn’t have his meter on him and didn’t pay attention to his meter, the worker also didn’t properly shutdown the pumps. The worker more then likely had the knowledge and the worker did have the meter, so therefore the worker is highly responsible for what happened while the company did have some responsibility as well. This incident didn’t happen to long ago meaning there were rules in place but the worker ignored the rules and didn’t take the proper actions to stay safe and prevent himself and others from dying.

[@nabagaca]

@@TexasLegionaryGuard except the video covered that the company had no rules, had no training, the literal extent of what the workers had was a pamphlet, therefore you can make no assumptions of what the worker knew, if the company didn't train them correctly and have safety procedures in place, they are at fault. The worker is only minorly at fault for not bringing in the meter, but they weren't told that was necessary, nor were they told that shutting off the pump was necessary. Common sense isn't enough in these situations, you need clear rules written down in words posted everywhere that even an idiot could follow, "verbal training" is a joke.

[@mhammer3186]

@@TexasLegionaryGuard I would 100% agree if they had fully trained him on hydrogen sulfide gas and a procedure in place to wear the monitor at all times. But with the knowledge we have from this video, I’d say they’re 80-90% at fault for the workers and 100% at fault for the wife.

[@ForumArcade]

The USCSB is top ten underrated KZbin channels, and I'm amazed at the content they produce. Especially being a government organization.

[@leogeck7350]

I found the channel one night bingeing youtube and diving into weirder and weirder videos. Have been a big fan since.

[@EvanBear]

The air safety institute does similar great work for aviation accidents. Videos like these make me make sure to obey company safety and hygiene standards in my job. I do not want to end up in one of these at some point - nor do I want customers of ours to end up in them.

[@guavaberries]

Re: the maintenance worker leaving his sensor behind: The way the company put so little emphasis on safety through their own practices demonstrates that they did not value safety at the core of their business. From this we can infer that they also did not create a company culture that valued safety. I argue that a company culture that deprioritized safety created an environment that over time applied pressure to all of it's workers to also deemphasize safety personally while on the job, which led to an almost foregone conclusion that if there was a disaster, safety equipment could easily be left behind by employees habituated to their environment of carelessness. Therefore, I think the company is more responsible than the maintenance worker for the disaster.

[@greysondeane4000]

One point I think was missed was the fact that the wife went checking before the company realized the worker didn’t report in, leave for the day, or the issue at the pump wasn’t resolved. You would except a system in place that wouldn’t allow a employe to be M.I.A for that long without it causing some sort of check in or additional crew being sent to the pump house.

[@diedoedae]

Without formal training, how do you know that the pumper knew what the personal detector did, and would he have been able to read it and respond appropriately to save his own life if he had it on him? 2% on the pumper.

[@wessltov]

That is even generously assuming that the personal detector was company issued or mandated, instead of being something the employee just ordered online. If I understand the facts correctly, the company can't prove that they did anything to prepare their people for even a mosquito bite. This poor guy might have been hired cheaply for his bolt-tightening skills, with his superior doing nothing to train him beyond "just follow your colleagues' example"

[@willy480able]

Wife: 100% Company. Pumper: 98% Company. Complete lack of a safety culture on the part of the company should cost them a bunch (as in send them into receivership). Also, that narrator's voice is familiar.

[@vastowen4562]

It is very familiar

[@mesmile8947]

Agree

[@carmelle4ever]

Is it the narrator from American Greed?

[@laurasalo6160]

@@carmelle4ever good call. I think you're right.

[@gregorystell6858]

Stacy Keech

[@GlenBradley]

Got an ad for James Scott Farrin on this vid, but if I ever need a catastrophic injury lawyer I’m calling Tom lol. I did let the ad play through though, so Tom can get a lil bit of that scumbag money. 🤣

[@arthurmernard5879]

I got Edgar Snyder bc they are based out of pittsburgh

[@adamreid9827]

Ive gotten at least 5 different injury lawyers from 3 different states on toms vids

[@sanjayw9878]

What I never get any lawyer ads in his videos I'm mad now

[@michaelmerryman7806]

I'm the idiot that's been paying for youtube premium and don't get any ads. Which is cool but now I feel left out, and ultimately it's a rip off and just feeds my youtube addiction if I had to watch ads I'd probably get more done it's hard to stop a binge when there are no ads interrupting you

[@smilemore1997]

@@michaelmerryman7806 same

[@Papershields001]

I can see why these CSB videos would be gold to a catastrophic personal injury lawyer. They are so directly informative and authoritative.

[@will5233]

After your last CSB video I’ve binged all their videos! Great stuff as always!

[@asm_nop]

Same. There's something so intriguing about going through the timeline of mistakes made by other people. I'm a tech in an engineering discipline, so this also gives some insight into the unexpected ways a system can fail.

[@laxenhancer]

Nobody: Tom's left eye: 📈 Tom's right eye: 📉

[@rckrohn98]

I just graduated in Occupational Safety on the 2nd. I have watched and written reports on all of these videos. Love that he’s making videos on this now so that I can get a different perspective!

[@ItsAsparageese]

Congrats on your graduation, and props for going into such a cool field where you'll get to help protect people!

[@nicksurfs1]

Obviously I don’t have all the details of the event, but although I tried to split responsibility, I just couldn’t. The company is 100% responsible in both cases. The mistakes the company made were just too simple and cheep to rectify. Why did the inside not have any alarm? Audible visual or both. That component is inexpensive. Also it is forceable that an employee forgets their personal monitor. It didn’t look like the monitor had any way to attach itself to the pumper or his clothing. If it did, that has the possibly to sway my view. But remembering to bring it with you to different locations multiple times a day it’s foreseeable you forget at least once. Did they have a sign on the door “don’t forget your personal monitor!”? That would contribute to changing my mind. His death could have been prevented by spending $150 max on an internal alarm component, and belt clip and a sign, that’s inexcusable to me. The wife shouldn’t have been able to get in the building, there was no danger warning on the building. Her case is more straightforward.

[@tjsynkral]

If that little personal alarm had your building access fob embedded in it, you'd make sure it's on your person at all times...

[@wessltov]

Honestly, a wife that goes to her husband's place of work might have just bought him that for Christmas

[@SuperS05]

The alarm light should have included a green light that's illuminated when not alarmed or in test mode. Failure to an on state can lead to a burnt out /malfunctioning indicator behind mistook for a good condition.

[@TooMuchDad]

These CSB video commentaries have been maybe my favorite videos you’ve ever done, please keep them up! I would say like 90\10 for the pumper. Depends a bit on how much training pumpers have outside of the company. Like closer to electrician or closer to cashier? Wife is like 99/1 company is responsible. Sure there might’ve been a sign, but cmonnnn they fucked upppp

[@austinanderson7020]

As an oil and gas professional, you are required to wear your H2S monitor at all times. In building or outside, it should be on your person at all times. But that said, the monitor is usually attached to your clothes, so it’s entirely likely that even if he was wearing his monitor. He could have been overcome from one breath, as he would be in the fumes before his monitor would have alarmed him. Every company I have ever worked with requires H2S training. All operators should also be required to be trained on lock out tag out, if your not then you shouldn’t be preforming maintenance. It’s also against the rules and regulations for someone who isn’t wearing proper PPE to go on location (wife).

[@heatflux2808]

Sounds like they should have monitors for that gas all over the whole facility

[@charadremur333]

They did, however all of the functional ones were in a fault state where they could not trip to the controller, or in a test mode where they would not activate an alarm. This system likely has a limit of 2 or 3 sensors tripping at the same time to trigger an alarm, so Its likely that the system did not have enough functional alarms to trigger an alert.

[@ItsAsparageese]

Seems to me that regardless of whatever centrally connected monitoring and alarm system there may be in a facility like this, it'd also be prudent to have standalone systems (like the personal monitors) at various locations so that they can serve as fully independent backups.

[@HummingbirdCyborg]

I'm glad that the children lived and I'm glad that the first responders were safe.

[@GlenBradley]

Man, you can really see how angry Tom is at this.

[@authgg]

Not mad, just disappointed

[@ItsAsparageese]

@@authgg He did specifically say it's infuriating. Fury is just a particular flavor of anger. But yeah he contains it very soberly and professionally, love his passion though, he's such a good fit for his specialty

[@brianbird3756]

After living around the oilfield my entire life, I finally decided to enter it. It's hard for me to keep in mind that some people don't know about the hazards of h2s. It was instilled into me at a very young age as I remember being really scared as a child hearing my father speak about the incident that happened in Denver City TX. It's also why I ALWAYS wear my monitor.

[@simplsquam]

Imagine losing both your mom and dad in one night and knowing you sat in a car right outside the building that had their bodies, wow

[@notamouse5630]

Note: Hydrogen sulfide is around as poisonous as carbon monoxide for the same reason as carbon monoxide. If you can smell it near an industry that produces it, run, then call 911 and report hydrogen sulfide. If you survive long enough, you will likely need oxygen when the ambulance arrives.

[@RandomNerd.]

You’re my favorite KZbin lawyer just because I feel like you’re an actually nice person instead of some lawyers I know irl.

[@Valkires1]

One of the best uses of my taxpayer money! (In reference to the CSB's videos)

[@PJohnson8320]

In response to “how did she even get in there?” There could be hundreds of locations on one lease, you can access the lease from the road in very few spots, as long as you follow the speed limits no one pulls you over to question you, so anyone can go out there, a few of the larger companies have a gate guard that will log you in and out of the lease but they’re not really there to stop anyone,

[@garrettgutierrez2677]

I checked the CSB after your last CSB reaction video and thought "dang these are interesting, I wish there were more CSB videos" but then I was like "wait hell no, the fewer the better because that means less tragic explosions and such. The CSB videos where everything goes right and its basically just a showcase on how to do things correctly are always a pleasant surprise.

[@itonner231]

So glad you are covering CSB videos. They are well done and highlight common chemical hazards encountered at many workplaces.

[@abloodcorpse3318]

"What's going on yall, attorneytom here, back with another on-site death review"

[@NotDecided420]

Hey Tom, is it cool being a legal Eagle, and having knowledge of how refineries work?! 5 year old me is throwing his fist in the air with excitement.

[@serialvapist5807]

100% the company. I'd put more stress on the lock out tag out procedures than the h2s monitor. If he had worn his monitor inside, he probably would have noticed it beeping, then died.

[@psyience3213]

Working by himself. Creating an atmosphere of complacency. Improper training on the dangers of h2s. 100% company.

[@the1exnay]

@@psyience3213 Is it a source of fault that he worked alone? We saw what happens when there's two people there, they both die. I can see how two people could reduce the danger slightly, but it doesn't seem that necessary to me.

[@notsam498]

Yeah, this was easily the most shocking thing. No written procedure on lock out tag out?!? Honestly it's dumbfounding.

[@psyience3213]

@@the1exnay it's always safer to work with a buddy. You hold eachother accountable. The second person was his wife looking for him, not a coworker

[@psyience3213]

@@the1exnay its not the source but in conjunction with. Extremely poor training and safety procedures while working by yourself is a guaranteed accident. So for example you could possibly get away with poor training if he was being mentored and monitored by a oil veteran. Like he said, procedures were word of mouth, well then where is your reference material?

[@kogure7235]

USCSB is such an amazing channel. Like Seconds From Disaster, but more interesting, straight to the point, and with far less overdramatization.

[@Qsie]

As unfortunate as these stories are, I have to say I really enjoy this content.

[@Sam-dp8gy]

Ok

[@michaelmaroney1660]

I would badly love to comment on this incident. I used to work at Aghorn as a pumper on another route. However, I left on bad terms so I will refrain. That said, the pumper (who I knew), worked at that facility for almost 9 years.

[@michaelgriggs8552]

Hey Tom, I quickly became a fan when I first saw your videos. I have a background as a paramedic and in industrial safety...I LOVE your CSB reactions! Keep fighting the good fight, my friend.

[@Warpyc]

I'd say for the employee it'd be something like 80/20 split in fault, with the company being at the very least 80% at fault. For the wife it is for sure 100% on the company

[@jeffshackleford3152]

You should have a good case coming out of Louisiana with the chick that got blown up by an uncapped oil well.

[@Kaanfight]

Jesus, what happened?

[@rinrin4711]

@@Kaanfight, the chick got blown up by an uncapped oil well in Louisiana.

[@dash3995]

Worker is 5% at fault because he had no reason to believe he needed to bring his detector and company is 95% at fault for faulty instructions, security, warning system, and ventilation

[@ufc990]

Normally I'd say the man should have had his monitor and got complacent, that he was too reliant on and confident of the pumphouses monitors. But apparently the company didnt have a procedure for carrying the monitor and there was a lack of worker education along with a lack of ventilation so yea, the company was super at fault, 90ish percent company's fault sounds fair to me.

[@Dabbleatory]

Good safety systems rely on multiple redundant layers of safety precautions. "He had no reason to suspect..." is just the attitude that contributed to his death, and his wife's too. The whole reason for a personal monitor is as a secondary check, to save your life in EXACTLY that case when you DIDN'T suspect another safety system had failed! If you're just going to trust that the blinky red light is 100% reliable, why even have a personal monitor? "He didn't wear a safety harness because he had no reason to suspect he was going to slip and fall to his death" "I didn't wear my seatbelt because I had no reason to suspect I was going to get into an accident" "We didn't have fire extinguishers because we had no reason to suspect there would be a fire." "I didn't LOTO the circuit because because I had no reason to suspect someone would turn it on". "I'm going to disable the safety lockouts because I don't suspect that anything else will go wrong." All of those things exist SPECIFICALLY for saving your ass from a problem YOU DIDN'T SUSPECT WOULD HAPPEN. If you actually suspected you were going to be injured or killed by a fall, crash, fire, electrocution, poisonous gas, or whatever, you wouldn't even go to work in the first place, right? The whole thing about accidents is that they are unexpected... Lawyers can debate percentages all they want, but in the end YOU have to take responsibility for your own safety and not bypass safety systems or procedures. So what if a lawyer convinces a jury that the company is even 100% responsible? - The guy and his wife are still dead. - The kids are still orphans. - It's likely neither would be true if the guy took a couple seconds to put on the monitor. No amount of money is going to change these things.

[@ufc990]

@@Dabbleatory I agree about redundancy but from what I recall it seems the company didnt, they didnt have a protocol that dictated one should always carry a personal monitor and didnt even have an education campaign to teach and reinforce lessons of this nature. Also, money won't bring them back but noone is under the illusion it will. Money will help the orphans pay for schooling and other things that their parents would have had they not passed.

[@ufc990]

@@Dabbleatory I'm curious as to why he had a monitor if he wasnt going to use it and company procedure did not call for it. Was it personal and he just didnt feel like taking it in that day? Did the company supply it and encourage but not require employees to use it? Why have it so close to hand and not bother to use it, I dont understand.

[@john_titor1]

@@Dabbleatory It doesn't matter though because he wasn't trained about any of this. For all he knew, that device was for measuring radiation levels. Or maybe it was a radio. Seeing as he was not trained properly for the job, nor the hazard, we simply cannot know if he even understood that H2S was a possible hazard! Let alone how to deal with it.

[@thekingofsas9407]

This is good stuff! Please keep doing this!

[@FatheredPuma81]

The scariest part about this was that if his personal detector was going off inside his truck the kids could have potentially been in serious danger...

[@aksmex2576]

I would give 95%-99% fault to the company. 5%-1% fault to the worker. 15%-20% fault to the spouse with her own claim, because it is not reasonable to drive your kids to a place that has signs saying dangerous. But it might not have been her first time which could lesseb her fault. Are there any regulations or legislation that say how the safety rules and procedures should be?

[@Wobmiar]

I think the whole point is that there was no signs it was dangerous

[@hotsoup1001]

My brother does this exact job in west Texas as an independent contractor. He showed me his detector and said most guys don't carry them inside unless they already suspect a possible leak. Apparently they are too sensitive and go off at the tiniest traces. He also said that they never turn off their pickups when out in the field because you could get stranded out there for hours if it didn't start. So, he said it's likely the reason the detector was going off inside the pickup was because the engine was running and the AC was pulling in the gas fumes. The wife likely turned her vehicle off out of habit and that saved their kids from their parents' fate. All supposition of course, but since he lives out there and does that work, it makes sense.

[@The_Charlatan]

Aww I like the mumbo-jumbo. If I wanted simple I would watch Legal Eagle. P.s. Loved your last video of this type, glade to see there is more.

[@M90thYou]

I think you were being very generous. That fact that he was give a device and a pamphlet indicates that the company gave no formal training and just handed him the items. His actions reflect this. With no evidence of proper training or maintenance or precautions I would say 100-100 companies fault for both. Might go as low as 95 on the worker but that would be very generous.

[@344bane]

I'm so happy that you're doing more of these!

[@emkultra2349]

different scenario entirely. I work in a warehouse and on first week was "trained" to never leave narrow aisles blocked by carts for fire safety. Year in and quotas being upped, most everyone is busy doing 3 other things and ignoring carts blocking backroom aisles. management; does not care

[@twister62344]

Imma have to say that it is 80/20 company is more at fault. The company was completely at fault for the wife

[@michaelbrandon1222]

I would argue for the wife the company is not at fault at all. The company didn't hire her so I assume she didn't go through any training, so even if all the alarms were working she probably wouldn't know what they meant and still run head first into a fatal situation.

[@leonardusbeaker638]

@@michaelbrandon1222 i don’t think the company is entirely at fault but they are definently more than 50% at fault. The fact that the premises is so dangerous you would need special training to be there means they should have something in place to stop just any random person from entering

[@michaelbrandon1222]

@@leonardusbeaker638 yeah you're right, I change my mind. Nobody should be able to just walk in there. What a perfect storm of tragedy 😔

[@sethcampbellmusic]

This is the crossover I’ve been waiting for

[@U1TR4F0RCE]

I find it hilarious in a tragic sense that the company had no lock out tag in procedure as when I worked at Walmart for both garbage removal and cardboard compressor we had a tag in lock out procedure. For all the OSHA violations TI LO was taken and followed seriously.

[@Dbay8898]

My god... this crap happens more than people think. That sad fact is if you raise an alarm for damaged equipment and refuse to work, they just fire you and find someone else.

[@joeprints9176]

I've always called those type of monitors a "sniffer"

[@nicksurfs1]

Does it have a way to attach to your body or clothing? Is it something you can put on at the start of your shift and keep it on till the end? It didn’t look like it so I was curious.

[@yermoffroad]

@@nicksurfs1 yeah it's like a over sized beeper

[@JunctionWatcher]

As a European I find it shocking that companies are allowed to operate like this in the US. This company would be shut down, lose its licence to operate and possibly even criminal charges against management if it operated like this in my country.

[@sirdurtle9519]

95 company - 5 employee The employee should have brought in his detector, but that is the only mistake he made. Even that is partially the company's fault by failing to stress the importance of the detector. You could also argue that he didn't perform maintenance on the pump correctly, but I think that is also the company's fault by failing to provide adequate training and not even having a set of instructions present on site. On the wife's claim, I would say 90 company - 10 wife. The wife should have known better than to take her children into a potentially hazardous environment where the public is not allowed, but the site definitely should have had some sort of security system in place to prevent random people from just driving up to this possibly dangerous facility.

[@Chanarie3]

100% on the company for the wife's death, if you are operating your facility correctly the public has NO access to your site. Try waltzing in past employee only areas at a gas or electrical company, you can't there are key code gates, security, cameras, and that's how a company working with hazardous materials operates.

[@ItsAsparageese]

It's not her job to know how dangerous the situation can get. What if a mentally disabled person escaped their home and was wandering in the area and wound up strolling into this facility while no one was around? It's the responsibility of the informed, licensed, regulated parties involved to set up reasonable preventions to keep the most uninformed and vulnerable possible members of the public from ending up in danger.

[@vincentleedy2933]

The narrator of the CSB videos is really high quality. I could imagine his voice narrating a major documentary or a presidential campaign commercial.

[@jagotiberan2181]

Another upload! Going to have a great Monday 😎 peace out homie from a fellow Houstonian!

[@phillyredsox9195]

This series is fire. Keep them coming.

[@agent_w.]

this tragedy of 2 lives being taken could’ve been avoided if Texas would allow more regulation...

[@societalnormality2268]

BuT "mUh FrEeDoM"

[@HardHatPat]

Watched it yesterday, didnt bring her access up, enjoy your dislike ... you made the wager

[@MoonLiteNite]

There is enough regulation. So much companies don't even bother. When you have a 1000 point inspection, missing 10% is whatever. If you actually had a few rules that mattered, they might actually be followed.

[@scuds03]

The issues that resulted in the accident were against regulations?

[@ryangreene50]

Often the companies themselves are the architects of that legislation

[@matthirten13]

The CSB review videos are great, can't wait for the next one!

[@ColoredHacks]

Please do more of these, very interesting channel

[@suckit5092]

I can’t imagine being the person who has to try to explain to those two kids why they won’t be going home with their mother and father.

[@3x3_cuber52]

"legal mumbo jumbo" -attorney tom, 2021

[@kieran7554]

legal mumbo jumbo implies the existence of illegal mumbo jumbo

[@hondrta]

Depends.

[@andrewa7405]

They also called him into the facility in the middle of the night which makes it’s worse that the call for the h2s warning didn’t go out and the facilities detector wasn’t working. Even with a second call for a H2S warning someone could miss that call thinking they’re just calling him again for the same pump warning not H2S warning

[@redxarmy7807]

Oh yeah here we go again. Time for another awesome react.

[@RealUtterNonsense]

Wow! My favorite KZbin Lawyer and my favorite government agency KZbin channel has a crossover? This just made my day.

[@RhiannonRenegade]

I know this makes you visibly upset, but these types of videos are really informative and engaging to watch. Will you make more videos like this?

[@hgbugalou]

Checklists should be a standard in every industry, not just aviation. They provide so much value at so little cost.

[@altirste21]

I kinda miss being a safety officer in a construction project

[@alfredoperez9017]

Did U lay down the Law . Up in that Bltch .

[@peterbarlow7781]

I love the CSB videos. So well done.

[@christopherambrosio8024]

Please for the love of Talos continue these, there's about 30 or so w animations if I recall right

[@kstricl]

I work at a print shop in the Canadian patch. The most basic safety manual, with the minimum guidelines, is 40 pages. I'd say that 90% on the company like many have said - that company would not be allowed to even open the office doors under Alberta rules - let alone continue to operate injection wells.

[@eternaldespot5383]

Hey this is unrelated to the video but I don’t remember you ever saying. How much startup money did you have while starting your firm, and how much would you consider a viable amount?

[@willatwood]

At the beginning, I automatically had the fault percentages as follows: Pumper 75%, Company 25% and for the wife 40% company 60%, but at the end of the video, I drastically revised my percentages to Pumper 10% Company 90% and Wife 1% Company 99%. An employee can only be as good as the training for safety, risks and overall abilities. If he was trained or trained poorly on all three areas, how can they blame the worker for not knowing or failing to follow safety procedures that they themselves did not teach him about. If you're handling dangerous gases, a great deal should be covered about risks, hazards, and every single preventive measure applicable, no matter how tedious and time consuming they are. This entire situation could've been prevented. As for the wife, build a fence, lock the fence, electronic keypad to enter, security anything could've been their to prevent her death as well.

[@ryanbroguy]

"Pumber v Company": 20%, 80%. Common sense says to bring your potenially life saving equipment with you when you need it, but since the company had cut such a tremendous amount of corners they are more at fault. "Wife v Company": 10%, 90%. She shouldnt have been able to access the plant to begin with. Especially not with her children with her.

[@thecentralintelligenceagen9963]

For the Wife 100 percent on the company a lack of proper security measures allowed the wife to enter the premise.

[@nicksurfs1]

What makes the wife 10% at fault? You’re the first person I’ve seen split her fault so I’m curious what your reasoning is.

[@ryanbroguy]

@@nicksurfs1 I guessed she should know not to go somewhere like that, especially with her kids. She may have been able to call and get someone with the proper equipment to check on her husband. If thats the case, she shouldve done that.

[@nicksurfs1]

@@ryanbroguy Ok, so you’re assuming she knew that particular building was potentially lethal or at least dangerous? If she did I can see something there. Obviously we’re just KZbin commenters who don’t have every detail we wish we did but it’s kinda fun to think through this.

[@ryanbroguy]

@@nicksurfs1 Yeah definitely. I assumed her husband wouldve told her about the dangers of where he worked. Like a civillian trying to enter a military base, you dont know what the equipment/machinery is so you shouldnt be near it. Its fun to think about this, despite the circumstances of the case.

[@jonathankhatskelevich7804]

Im so happy for you that your channel is exploding like this

[@ElErizoSombra]

Worker vs Company: 75% Company/25% Worker. The worker did forget his device which would have otherwise saved him, but the absolute lack of any meaningful training what so ever can not be overlooked. Spouse vs Company: 100% Company. Lack of proper security measures as well as a lack of alarm system notifying of the lethal gas inside is completely on the company. The spouse was worried and had probably tried calling several times. It definitely seems like the spouse has been there before as they were able to find the location fairly easily. This means the company was okay with this happening.

[@michaelbrandon1222]

I would argue the woman is at fault for she had not received any training so eve if the alarm light was on she wouldn't of known what it meant. But you do have the point with how she was even able to get onto the property in the first place, doesn't seem like anybody could just waltz in there.

[@pinktehbeast]

Thanks for a great video Tom. I ended up watching this one and a few others after you posted the last CSB review and subbed that channel too. Sadly these videos do nothing but infuriate me because it usually is simple solutions to solve these problems and more often than not it's workers trying to save the company time and money that cause them.

[@Palmster]

MA BOI TOMMY TOM

[@KB-ld7jw]

I love USCSB channel. So cool you are breaking these down now.

[@magicjello4633]

For the wife: 95% company, 5% wife. For the worker: 99% company, 1% worker

[@theredarmy4884]

Great video Tom, love these last two CSB ones, they're great stuff. For the worker I'm in for 90/10 fault against the company, and for the wife 100/0. Ventilation might have saved both their lives. Proper equipment or training might have saved both their lives. Basic security might have saved her life even if the worker had passed. And so on. The question I still have is, how would a jury assign damages once they determine fault? I assume things like income, punitive damages, etc are considered, but how is a specific number reached? Do juries even decide that? If there's enough to talk about on this topic I'd love a whole video on it. Thanks for your time and effort!

[@psyience3213]

I don't care if he didn't have his personal detection device, the company is still responsible for creating an atmosphere conducive to complacency. Why was he by himself? How much training did he get in the dangers of hydrogen sulfide? And lock out tag out is a huge problem. That's an osha violation. For the wife, the company is like 200% at fault, i think that's negligent homocide.

[@JohnSmith-xv2ob]

"If you are handling hazardous materials, you need formal training!" *pants in Gordon Freeman*

[@0xEmmy]

18:12 Ok, let's see: The company: - Failed to mandate monitoring equipment - Failed to implement reliable interlocks (e.x. lockout/tag-out) on potentially hazardous machinery - Allowed a safety device to become stuck in a false "no-hazard" condition - Failed to offer fixed redundant safety indicators - Failed to inform workers of the hazards present - [edit] Failed to secure the site against unqualified access The worker: - Failed to use an offered safety device The wife: - Entered the facility without heeding warning signs That's 7 failures - 5 [edit 6] with the company, 1 with the worker, and 1 with the wife. 1 issue suggests a simple, honest oversight or misunderstanding; 5 pretty strongly indicates a blatant disregard for safety. I'm gonna go 90% company, 5% each victim.

[@n300zx931]

I worked at one of these plants. The security is nonexistent. Sometimes kids will sneak in at night and smoke up on the tank batteries. They could literally blow up the location.

[@hiimpercy]

These are great. More of these, please.

[@Swimmerchild]

As someone who works in an industry that deals with H2S (geothermal) there are a lot of faults that I can see. Also as the person responsible for the implementation and safety checks for the personal protective equipment (PPE) and the stationary safety equipment (Gas sensors and alarms). I am also personally responsible for checking the equipment, getting the service performed, calibration, procurement, and testing. In the case of the employee vs the company I think it is 20% employee fault and 80% company fault. 1) Reasoning being that the company did not perform the standard checking and testing of the equipment. The stationary detectors need to be set up and checked prior to any exposure to gas. The fact that some were in test mode means they did at least try to test them, but the person who did the testing was not trained hence they forgot to switch it back to run mode. In this case if the company had the employee perform the action then the company did not adequately train the employee. If they had a third party do the testing then that company is at fault as they are the ones responsible for the guarantee that equipment is in working order. Additionally some of the other H2S sensors did not send a signal to the control center hence they were not installed and checked correctly. Generally you do a spot check on the equipment every few months with a known quantity gas to ensure that the alarms are in working order, this does not seem to have been done. 2) The company did not train the employee on the safe “handling” of H2S. Aside from being highly toxic to life, H2S is highly corrosive and highly explosive with it becoming explosive in concentrations between 4.5% and 45%. Having a policy to keep the doors open might be enough for the explosively aspect but definitely not enough for the health hazard. At my work site when the H2S alarm is triggered the ventilation immediately kick in, alarms are set off, electricity is cut off, and signals are sent. If the employee was given a pamphlet to learn from then he did not receive the correct level of training on just how dangerous his work was. 3) Lack of lock-out-tag-out is bad practice and the lack of written procedures is a huge red flag. I wonder how many other safety, emissions, and general regulation the company was breaking if they didn’t keep up the smallest bit of safety. I do not know what the maintenance or troubleshooting for the equipment that they have is/was, but not having access to it in a written form is a huge issue. When I do the safety training I talk to each employee personally, walk them through, give them the hard copy of the procedure as well as the electronic copy, and even on top of that I have a video that is stored online, usb, and local computer so that they all have the same information. Given the fact the procedures at this company were all just spoken then the training this person received would be different than that of the next employee. 4) The employee is also at fault for not having his detector on him. In a field of work with hazards such as heavy equipment, overhead equipment, and hazardous gases the procedure even if just spoken would have been to use helmet, steel toes, and PPE when entering a facility. While I believe the employee should have asked for additional information or training for what he would be dealing with, it is not his responsibility or his fault for not receiving or requesting additional training (unless he lied about his qualifications). But even if he lied about his qualifications the employer is ultimately at fault for not checking. Had the employee been using his PPE he should have been alerted that something was wrong. That being said the employee has to also trust the PPE he has. If the PPE was issued by the company and had not been maintained and tested then the employee could have written off the alarm as the device being faulty and hence he doesn’t trust it. That is why it is important to train them on the device and ensure that the PPE is maintained properly and tested regularly. As for the spouse I believe the company is 100% at fault. She did not have any training and was maybe entering private property, however she did not break down anything and simply walked through an open gate. The spouse is not expected to know of any dangers as they would not have the training, nor was there a siren or light or any sort of warning aside from some fence markings to indicate the area was unsafe at the time. It was irresponsible of them to take the children, but they did not commit any crime by searching for their partner. If the company policy is to keep the gates closed while no one is on site then it should be the same if someone is on site. Had the gate been closed the spouse might have survived, they would have seen the truck then could have called either emergency services or the company so they could check on the employee.

[@expertoflizardcorrugation3967]

An Ex grandfather of mine worked in an oil field not sure where, but he had a close call with it. I'd have to ask some relatives for details. If I remember correctly he quickly had immediate huge issues breathing, but that could be a false memory on my part. He was lucky not to be killed

[@Sh4dowSound]

my heart just breaks for those kids

[@ninjkitywarlock6337]

I think the most insane part about this is how simple this could've been to prevent. Assuming all the failsafes did fail, no alarms worked and the pump failed. If the worker had been given proper training, had his detector on his person (most of the guys at my local refinery have them clipped to their vest at all times), and had CBRN mask he probably could've single handedly fixed the issue or at least given warning to a team that could've. And that's just it, most people that fall victim to CBRN threats are killed because of a lack or training and equipment not to mention nonfuctional failsafes.

[@evanroden2225]

Gotta recommend their video, Caught in the Storm! It's probably the most interesting, from a liability standpoint.

[@rallias1]

So, as someone who's made baby rattles out of LOTO's (AttorneyTom Picks Locks episode?), Worker's fault should be limited, if at all. Also, I'd like to point out... they even modeled the little dimples in the trucks seat.

[@cheeseburger-u3f]

company vs worker: 80%-90% company company vs wife: 70%-80% company

[@fuhq07]

As a person who works in an industry where lack of safety regulations means someone will die this story bothers me immensely. I would place blame in worker vs company at 95% the company’s fault, they provided insufficient training which means that the worker could have had little idea of how dangerous the work he was performing was. Without properly mandated training and properly documented procedures that are properly recorded in each instance needing those procedures and trains your are asking for complete liability in any situation where someone can get hurt or killed. The safety procedures and training at the company I work for is almost excessive but it is there for a reason and that is because we recognize the level of danger at each step in every process and we address it accordingly. I’m the case of the wife vs the company, 100% on the company. No excuses, if the work has any level of risk involved people who have no need to be there should not even be allowed near the work being done.