# Tree Service Owner Charged In Death of Employee



## Ductape

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=79962637-9e90-449a-9c87-f365f067de49

BRENTWOOD – A judge heard arguments this morning about whether prosecutors can use federal occupational safety rules at the negligent homicide trial of an East Kingston tree-service owner accused of causing an employee’s death.

Maurice Buzzell is facing charges of negligent homicide and reckless conduct for the death of Jon LaVigueur, 22, of Kingston.

Workers were cutting an 82-foot pine tree on Aug. 7, 2007 on 15th Street in Kingston which fell on LaVigueur and killed him, according to prosecutors.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark

> “(He) required employees to stand in front of trees and stay there until the trees started to fall,” Assistant County Attorney Howard Helrich said.




:jawdrop:​


If that is true, I'd have no trouble voting to convict of negligent homicide.


----------



## Booshcat

“(He) required employees to stand in front of trees and stay there until the trees started to fall,” Assistant County Attorney Howard Helrich said.

On the other hand, that describes someone cutting down a tree with a chainsaw.


----------



## Ductape

BlueRidgeMark said:


> :jawdrop:​
> 
> 
> If that is true, I'd have no trouble voting to convict of negligent homicide.




I figure there HAS to more to it than that. My memory could be off on this one, but it seems to me the worker that was killed was using a rope to ensure the tree went in a particular direction. Rope must have been much shorter than the tree?


----------



## treeslayer

of course he had to stand there, he was pulling a rope.



rope must have been short, and he was mesmerized by the falling tree.


----------



## EdenT

*Sad news indeed.*

I did a bit of a background check on this story. This article has the OSHA violations (7 of the 9) that the company was fined for.

 KINGSTON: OSHA fines tree removal company after worker's death
By James A. Kimble
Staff writer

Here is the story from the paper the day after with eyewitness accounts of what transpired.

Sounds like the company was an accident waiting to happen. I feel bad for the family that lost a son.

Sad sad story.


----------



## pdqdl

Some of those citations sound like a vindictive bureaucracy seeking to get even for the unfortunate death of a worker.

Assess the work area to see if there were hazards that would require workers to wear protective equipment. *Really? It's only tree work!*

Make sure each employee wore foot protection such as heavy-duty logging boots. *I don't think the fellow died from injuries to his feet.*

Provide first-aid kits at work sites where trees were being cut. *It would have had to be one heck of a first aid kit to save him.*

Start chain saws on the ground. *Since when is that a rule? I have read manufacturer's instructions that tell you to hold the saw between your legs.*

Make sure brakes were engaged on the chain saw when it was started. *Since when is that a rule?*

I don't pretend to know all the OSHA rules, and these are all good things to do or have on the job. It sounds to me like a stack of petty charges, none of which would have saved the guy if they had been rigidly enforced.


Some years back I had two idiots that almost got squished after the tree was pulled in their direction. They pulled a huge oak over, the rope went slack, and they stood there like posts, apparently mesmerized. The cutter yelled "RUN !!!", and they came to life before it got them. There was lots of room for there to be no risk to begin with, and they were not new to tree work.


----------



## STIHLMAN83

This is close to home for me, two towns away. It is sad that a young man lost his life due to working. If the employer was working in unsfe work conditions that is one thing and this could have been prevented. If I remember right when this happened it was this young man's second day in the job. I am not saying that he should have been doing this or that, or the the employer should go to jail or be let free because I do not know the exact situation he was in and it is not clear in the story. A little common sense goes a long way.


----------



## oldirty

STIHLMAN83 said:


> This is close to home for me, two towns away. It is sad that a young man lost his life due to working. If the employer was working in unsfe work conditions that is one thing and this could have been prevented. If I remember right when this happened it was this young man's second day in the job. I am not saying that he should have been doing this or that, or the the employer should go to jail or be let free because I do not know the exact situation he was in and it is not clear in the story. A little common sense goes a long way.




i think i may have heard the ground wasnt cleaned up and was a mess from the top before. then you add the short pull line. and now i hear day2 into the game. damn shame.


where you from stihlman? ive been in a few back yards of southern nh. cheap copenhagen at the store too.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark

treeslayer said:


> rope must have been short, and he was mesmerized by the falling tree.





He was running away when he got hit.


----------



## VA-Sawyer

I'm concerned that the court seems to be holding the tree service to the OSHA logging standards. I was under the impression that as long as we were following the z133 standards, OSHA would leave us alone. I pulled out my copy of z133 looking for something to confirm such, but don't see it.


----------



## outofmytree

Maurice Buzzel may just as well have pushed that young man under the tree. This is gross negligence.

If the rope was long enough there is no way the tree could have fallen on him.

If he had adequate training for the job given him he may well have gone left or right with his coworkers.

If he had a hard hat on he may have recovered from his injuries.

If the escape paths had been cleared he may well not have tripped and died.

I own the company. I am responsible for my guys. Why does it take a young mans death for simple rules to be applied and enforced?

I hope the prosecution is succesful and that the result is broadcast loud and clear. 

Yes this is a dangerous industry. Which is exactly why employers need to meet or exceed their legal obligations to their employees.


----------



## outofmytree

pdqdl said:


> Some of those citations sound like a vindictive bureaucracy seeking to get even for the unfortunate death of a worker.
> 
> Assess the work area to see if there were hazards that would require workers to wear protective equipment. *Really? It's only tree work!* *Its called a JSA*
> 
> Make sure each employee wore foot protection such as heavy-duty logging boots. *I don't think the fellow died from injuries to his feet.* *No he died from being struck on the head after tripping over. His footwear may well have made a difference*
> 
> Provide first-aid kits at work sites where trees were being cut. *It would have had to be one heck of a first aid kit to save him.* *If he had been adequately protected a decent first aid kit may well have saved his life*
> 
> Start chain saws on the ground. *Since when is that a rule? I have read manufacturer's instructions that tell you to hold the saw between your legs.* *Both are acceptable practises described in the user manual of every Stihl chainsaw I own*
> 
> Make sure brakes were engaged on the chain saw when it was started. *Since when is that a rule?* *Read the Stihl user manual.*
> 
> I don't pretend to know all the OSHA rules, and these are all good things to do or have on the job. It sounds to me like a stack of petty charges, none of which would have saved the guy if they had been rigidly enforced. *See above for the ways in which I disagree*
> 
> Some years back I had two idiots that almost got squished after the tree was pulled in their direction. They pulled a huge oak over, the rope went slack, and they stood there like posts, apparently mesmerized. The cutter yelled "RUN !!!", and they came to life before it got them. There was lots of room for there to be no risk to begin with, and they were not new to tree work. *So again the rope was too short.... That is so easy to fix it would be laughable in any other circumstance*



I am not attacking you personally mate. I simply disagree with what you posted.


----------



## pdqdl

That's ok. I have thick skin. In fact, sometimes us folks with thick skin enjoy being rubbed the wrong way! In this case, I was not contending as an advocate for the poor abused owner, I was commenting on the pointless interference of our government bureaucracy. 

My point in commenting on this unfortunate death is that having a government agency come in and cite an owner for a myriad of inconsequential violations does not address the true cause of why the poor kid got killed. All it does is impoverish the company, enrich the governent, and reduce the capacity of the company to make restitution to the family of the victim. How about something that reads like "Failed to provide a safe working environment for ground personnel" or perhaps "Did knowingly put at risk unqualified employees without proper instruction to safeguard them from injury"



> Originally Posted by pdqdl
> Some of those citations sound like a vindictive bureaucracy seeking to get even for the unfortunate death of a worker.
> 
> Assess the work area to see if there were hazards that would require workers to wear protective equipment. Really? It's only tree work! Its called ISA I was being sarcastic! But the point is that any violation cited using that language is probably easily defeated by an attorney. I don't think there was a failure to assess hazards. I think there was a failure to comply with known hazard prevention requirements.
> 
> Make sure each employee wore foot protection such as heavy-duty logging boots. I don't think the fellow died from injuries to his feet. No he died from being struck on the head after tripping over. His footwear may well have made a difference. I'll bet against that! Even if he was wearing OSHA approved boots, he would likely have been entangled in brush. Perhaps he would have been saved if he had been wearing sandals (flip-flops) that would have easily fallen off in the entanglement. We will never know.
> 
> Provide first-aid kits at work sites where trees were being cut. It would have had to be one heck of a first aid kit to save him. If he had been adequately protected a decent first aid kit may well have saved his life  Your comments are a bit contentious here. Since none of us know the facts, we should be addressing the most likely scenario. A first aid kit, as required by OSHA, only contains materials that are effective on minor skin injuries. Sometimes they contain a cord that could be used as a tourniquet. No emergency life protection materials would have been included, certainly nothing that would help with massive head or internal injuries.
> 
> Start chain saws on the ground. Since when is that a rule? I have read manufacturer's instructions that tell you to hold the saw between your legs. Both are acceptable practices described in the user manual of every Stihl chainsaw I own Since when do "acceptable practices" have anything to do with regulations? Especially in this country. There is a huge difference between what makes good sense and what you should fine a company for violating. As I understand the reports on this injury, the victim of this story wasn't even using a chainsaw. Any citations given to the company on that issue would consist of punishing them for coming to the attention of OSHA by bumping off an employee.
> 
> Make sure brakes were engaged on the chain saw when it was started. Since when is that a rule? Read the Stihl user manual. Stihl does not write OSHA regulations. And how would writing up the owner for this violation have protected the victim?
> 
> I don't pretend to know all the OSHA rules, and these are all good things to do or have on the job. It sounds to me like a stack of petty charges, none of which would have saved the guy if they had been rigidly enforced. See above for the ways in which I disagree OK. I did.
> 
> Some years back I had two idiots that almost got squished after the tree was pulled in their direction. They pulled a huge oak over, the rope went slack, and they stood there like posts, apparently mesmerized. The cutter yelled "RUN !!!", and they came to life before it got them. There was lots of room for there to be no risk to begin with, and they were not new to tree work. So again the rope was too short.... That is so easy to fix it would be laughable in any other circumstance Absolutely true. I had that conversation with my climber when the event took place. What is not known in my little tale is how close the guys really were when the tree came down. _The point of my story was that they were not taking measures to insure that they were safe, and had to be told to move out of the way of an obvious risk._





outofmytree said:


> I am not attacking you personally mate. I simply disagree with what you posted.


----------



## pdqdl

Ductape said:


> http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=79962637-9e90-449a-9c87-f365f067de49
> 
> BRENTWOOD – A judge heard arguments this morning about whether prosecutors can use federal occupational safety rules at the negligent homicide trial of an East Kingston tree-service owner accused of causing an employee’s death....



I think whoever put a chainsaw to the tree and was supervising the job should be charged. Cutting a tree down on top of a worker is clearly negligent.


----------



## tree md

Very sad. My prayers for the family.

I have dropped trees in tight places before where we knew we would have to beat a hasty retreat. I have been on both ends of it, cutter and rope man. In every situation we have gotten a plan together before the drop. That is on every tree whether it is in a tight spot or not. Every member of the team needs to be reminded to have an escape route planned out, even the faller. The faller or supervisor needs to hear everyone's plan and approve it. You need to have everyone spell out for you what they are going to do and where they are going to go. Especially when there is a new man on the crew. You can't just assume that someone has the knowledge to choose the correct plan of escape.

We are responsible for these inexperienced guys on the end of the line. So sad that an organized game plan could have made this death avoidable.


----------



## VA-Sawyer

1910.266(d)(1)(iv)
The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg protection constructed with cut-resistant material, such as ballistic nylon. The leg protection shall cover the full length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg to protect against contact with a moving chain saw. Exception: This requirement does not apply when an employee is working as a climber if the employer demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by wearing leg protection in the particular situation, or when an employee is working from a vehicular mounted elevating and rotating work platform meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.68.
1910.266(d)(1)(v)
*The employer shall assure that each employee wears foot protection, such as heavy-duty logging boots that are waterproof or water repellent, cover and provide support to the ankle. The employer shall assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears foot protection that is constructed with cut-resistant material which will protect the employee against contact with a running chain saw.* Sharp, calk-soled boots or other slip-resistant type boots may be worn where the employer demonstrates that they are necessary for the employee's job, the terrain, the timber type, and the weather conditions, provided that foot protection otherwise required by this paragraph is met.
1910.266(d)(1)(vi)
*The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee who works in an area where there is potential for head injury from falling or flying objects wears head protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910.*1910.266(d)(1)(vii)
The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee wears the following:
1910.266(d)(1)(vii)(A)
Eye protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910 where there is potential for eye injury due to falling or flying objects; and
1910.266(d)(1)(vii)(B)
Face protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of Part 1910 where there is potential for facial injury such as, but not limited to, operating a chipper. Logger-type mesh screens may be worn by employees performing chain-saw operations and yarding. 

Note to paragraph (d)(1)(vii): The employee does not have to wear a separate eye protection device where face protection covering both the eyes and face is worn.
1910.266(d)(2)
"First-aid kits."
1910.266(d)(2)(i)
The employer shall provide first-aid kits at each work site where trees are being cut (e.g., felling, buckling, limbing), at each active landing, and on each employee transport vehicle. The number of first-aid kits and the content of each kit shall reflect the degree of isolation, the number of employees, and the hazards reasonably anticipated at the work site.
1910.266(d)(2)(ii)
At a minimum, each first-aid kit shall contain the items listed in Appendix A at all times.
1910.266(d)(2)(iii)
The employer also may have the number and content of first-aid kits reviewed and approved annually by a health care provider.
1910.266(d)(2)(iv)
The employer shall maintain the contents of each first-aid kit in a serviceable condition.

1910.266(e)(2)(vi)
*The chain saw shall be started on the ground or where otherwise firmly supported. Drop starting a chain saw is prohibited.*1910.266(e)(2)(vii)
*The chain saw shall be started with the chain brake engaged.*
1910.266(e)(2)(viii)
The chain saw shall be held with the thumbs and fingers of both hands encircling the handles during operation unless the employer demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by keeping both hands on the chain saw in that particular situation.
1910.266(e)(2)(ix)
The chain-saw operator shall be certain of footing before starting to cut. The chain saw shall not be used in a position or at a distance that could cause the operator to become off-balance, to have insecure footing, or to relinquish a firm grip on the saw.
1910.266(e)(2)(x)
Prior to felling any tree, the chain-saw operator shall clear away brush or other potential obstacles which might interfere with cutting the tree or using the retreat path.
1910.266(e)(2)(xi)
The chain saw shall not be used to cut directly overhead.
1910.266(e)(2)(xii)
The chain saw shall be carried in a manner that will prevent operator contact with the cutting chain and muffler.
1910.266(e)(2)(xiii)
The chain saw shall be shut off or the throttle released before the feller starts his retreat.
1910.266(e)(2)(xiv)
The chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be engaged whenever a saw is carried further than 50 feet (15.2 m). The chain saw shall be shut down or the chain brake shall be engaged when a saw is carried less than 50 feet if conditions such as, but not limited to, the terrain, underbrush and slippery surfaces, may create a hazard for an employee.

These are Laws in the Logging section of the OSHA regulations. Not "good practices" or "recomended procedures" but actual mandatory Federal Regulations.
There are a lot of things in the logging section about Training ( Required for each employee ), First Aid Certification ( Required for each employee ) and more rules one needs to be aware of.
If we are going to be held to these standards for tree work, then I would like to know it before called into court.


----------



## pdqdl

Those are good to read, particularly the last paragraphs about chainsaw operations. But here is the question: Do OSHA logging standards apply to tree service operations in a residential setting? 

I have no idea.

I do know that OSHA has no jurisdiction if you happen to be running a mining operation; there is a different safety agency in charge of that type of operation. We all know that we can be hauled into court by OSHA, but what are the applicable rules? Are we "Logging" or do we slip into some other category? I fear that they would pull out whatever rule they wanted and let the lawyers prove otherwise.


----------



## 1harlowr

Glad we don't let the facts get involved  Don't think anyone on here knows what they are enough to know if anyone (tree company or man killed) was negligent


----------



## VA-Sawyer

"Do OSHA logging standards apply to tree service operations in a residential setting? "

That is the $64,000 question. On the OSHA web site they have a section that defines "logging". 

"Logging operations." Operations associated with felling and moving trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery, such as, but not limited to, marking danger trees and trees/logs to be cut to length, felling, limbing, bucking, debarking, chipping, yarding, loading, unloading, storing, and transporting machines, equipment and personnel to, from and between logging sites. 

Here is the regulation:

Scope and application.
1910.266(b)(1)
This standard establishes safety practices, means, methods and operations for all types of logging, regardless of the end use of the wood. These types of logging include, but are not limited to, pulpwood and timber harvesting and the logging of sawlogs, veneer bolts, poles, pilings and other forest products. This standard does not cover the construction or use of cable yarding systems.

Notice the part " regardless of the end use of the wood. "

Don't see anything that says " does not apply to arborculture work " anywhere in the rules.

My 30 years experience dealing with Federal Regulations and the FAA leads me to believe that OSHA Logging rules *may* be applied to us tree workers. 

VA


----------



## pdqdl

It does sound that way, doesn't it?

I suspect that what is needed is to find another category within OSHA regulations that definitively applies to tree trimming operations; otherwise they will pick what fits best.

I am sure that some specialist lawyer could find thousands of court rulings on where the arboriculture industry fits in.


----------



## VA-Sawyer

Found this on OSHA site:


http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/treecare/standards.html

They have all kinds of sections they say apply to us.

VA


----------



## murphy4trees

There definitely should be some standard that requires the workers to be out of the drop zone when a tree is being pulled with a rope...
No exciuse for that .. get a longer rope, get a pulley and sling to redirect. Hammer in a ground anchor in front of the fence.. whatever it takes!!.. 

Pull and run is not an acceptable option... 

An old aquaintance stopped by my house and we got to talking trees... he told me a story about pulling a tree over with a dodge 150 P/U truck... 

Said it was a big old backleaner over his father in law's house.. he went up and set a line, then notched it at about 20'... then got into his truck and backed up to pull the tree over. He was too tight to a fence to clear the tree, so once it started coming over, he put it in first and gunned it to clear the DZ... Not sure I believe him, and wasn't in the mood to lecture, so I just smiled and told him how great he was..


----------



## ddhlakebound

1harlowr said:


> Glad we don't let the facts get involved  Don't think anyone on here knows what they are enough to know if anyone (tree company or man killed) was negligent



Pfft....

Fact: Employee was standing in the fall zone of the tree when the tree was cut. 

Fact: He died as a result of the tree falling on him. 

So how is it that we don't have enough facts to know if anyone was negligent?


----------



## 1harlowr

ddhlakebound said:


> Pfft....
> 
> Fact: Employee was standing in the fall zone of the tree when the tree was cut.
> 
> Fact: He died as a result of the tree falling on him.
> 
> So how is it that we don't have enough facts to know if anyone was negligent?




Guys on here saying the owner should be thrown in jail, sued for everything, and etc...
A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
A guy on here (the internet) said the second day on the job. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
All these could be false or all could be true. No one here knows the facts yet, only what has been said in the news report (very little) and what guys on here has said. 
Owner at fault, I don't know one way or another.


----------



## ddhlakebound

1harlowr said:


> Guys on here saying the owner should be thrown in jail, sued for everything, and etc...
> A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
> A guy on here (the internet) said the second day on the job. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
> All these could be false or all could be true. No one here knows the facts yet, only what has been said in the news report (very little) and what guys on here has said.
> Owner at fault, I don't know one way or another.



The article EdenT links states 3 men were holding the rope and pulling the tree. We know for a fact that he was holding a rope, and that it was too damn short. Duh. If it was not too short, the tree would have been incapable of reaching him without breaking apart and flying. I suppose there's always the possibility he was holding the middle of a long rope, standing in the middle of the drop zone, but I wouldn't put much money on that. And if that happened, it was effectively a short rope. 

Whether or not it was the second day on the job nothing to do with whether or not someone was negligent. You don't get to ignore the rules because someone is new. Generally, everyone on site is extra careful with a noob onsite. 
Your original statement was "Don't think anyone on here knows what they are enough to know if anyone (tree company or man killed) was negligent."

It's plainly obvious that negligence was part of this man's death. Who's? His own? The foreman on the site? The owner of the company? Well, we don't have the facts to determine who's negligence it was. But we easily have the facts to determine that someone was.


----------



## EdenT

1harlowr said:


> Guys on here saying the owner should be thrown in jail, sued for everything, and etc...
> A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
> A guy on here (the internet) said the second day on the job. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
> All these could be false or all could be true. No one here knows the facts yet, only what has been said in the news report (very little) and what guys on here has said.
> Owner at fault, I don't know one way or another.



Fact, the crew pulled the rope and then ran! How can the rope be long enough? It only takes 150' rope fixed 2/3 the way up the tree to keep them clear of the drop zone. - The rope is too short and that's a fact.

Fact, it was his second day on the job. Possibly disputable, the article in the Eagle Tribune stated _'LaVigueur had worked for the company for just a short time, according to Briggs.'_ He was an inexperienced tree worker and that's a fact.

The point of this discussion is two things. One it allows professional tree workers to get some piece of mind by analyzing the circumstances and ensuring the same thing does not happen on one of their work sites. The second is that by combing through the details there is a chance that one of us might go - 'hey I do that, maybe I can improve my operations.'

To slip into denial attitude of simply saying - 'we can never know the facts' is to bury ones head in the sand and makes this poor kids death completely meaningless. If anyone modifies there work practices to make them safer as a result of this then at least he may have saved another persons life.

Don't forget that what is said on here has no bearing whatsoever on the case. It is simply our way of learning what we can from, and consoling ourselves over this tragic accident.


----------



## 1harlowr

Said others said second day on job not second job of the day. Was saying we don't know who was negligent, faller/man killed/supervisor/owner. I for one don't know who or what the facts were. 
Didn't mean to imply no one was at fault as someone was.
Have a good day and out


----------



## BlueRidgeMark

ddhlakebound said:


> We don't know for a fact that he was holding a rope, .





Read the article, folks. He was running straight away from the tree when it hit him. 

That's a fact stated in the news report.


----------



## Taxmantoo

1harlowr said:


> A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not



I have zero pro experience, but it seems clear enough that if the rope was long enough and the guy was holding onto the end of it, he'd have to be strong enough to drag it off the stump to make it fall on him. If he wasn't holding onto the end of it, then the faller had no business starting to cut until the groundie was moved to the end of the rope. The faller should be the only one standing in the fall zone when the cutting starts, period.
If some bozo wanders into the fall zone while you're making the backcut, then maybe that isn't your fault as a faller.


----------



## treemandan

TreeCo said:


> "“(He) required employees to stand in front of trees and stay there until the trees started to fall,”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading the above sentence I knew we were not getting the straight story.



Yes it was a very vague and misleading statement.


----------



## Taxmantoo

TreeCo said:


> "“(He) required employees to stand in front of trees and stay there until the trees started to fall,”
> 
> 
> 
> After reading the above sentence I knew we were not getting the straight story.



That's because the sentence you quoted is written in the language of Persecutorese, spoken only by the walking douche nozzles known as Persecuting Attorneys.


----------



## VA-Sawyer

Having been the subject of a newspaper story written to shed a poor light on me and friend, I can tell you that not everything presented as fact in a newspaper is to be trusted. I was on the airport board at the time, the owner of the paper didn't get his facts straight and it caused a lot of hard feelings with me and the airport manager, ( the other victim of the article ) along with most the the other members of the board on one side and the city attorney on the other. Found out years later the lawyer had a vested interest in a competing airport in the county. Never was able to get the paper to print the retraction.

About all I am sure about in this case is that a young person was killed. He might have been involved with the removal of the tree and might have been actually hit by the falling tree trunk, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it. 

I have been present for a few airplane crashes, the newspaper reports often had so many 'facts' screwed up that it didn't read even close to what I actually saw. The problem is so few reporters actually know anything about airplanes. I suspect that about the same number actually know anything about tree work.
VA


----------



## outofmytree

I am both impressed with how many posters are outraged at this incident and dumbfounded that there is ANY support for the company involved.

This guy was at work. Who is responsible for ensuring the worksite is as safe as possible. The employer. Was is at safe as possible? *NO* 

Either the rope was too short (failure to provide proper equipment) or the groundcrew were holding the middle of a long rope (failure to provide adequate training or supervision) either way the groundcrew were in the fell zone (failure to provide adequate training or supervision). 

The *FACT* is, that due to either a lack of training, provision of appropriate equipment, or appropriate supervision, a young man is dead. Nothing we say here can bring him back. The only good thing I see coming out of this thread is my (and I hope your) redoubled determination to *NEVER* let this happen on my watch.

Stay safe people.


----------



## pdqdl

Please don't confuse our criticism of the government's response or accuracy in reporting as support for the employer. They are separate issues.

Not many employers can tell you what it is like to have an on-the-job fatality. I can.

Not every fatality can be prevented with proper training. In the case of my own experience, we had a very skilled climber die from errors on his third day on the job. Not a case of improper training, or lack of safety controls by the employer. Just plain old "fatal error". Had OSHA come to our facility to write as many tickets as they could, I am sure that it would have sounded a lot like this story.

I am inclined to think you are right about this fatality: whoever told a groundman to pull a tree over with a short rope should be hung out to dry.


----------



## VA-Sawyer

Here are some excerprs from the eye whitness accounts


KINGSTON - A Circuit Drive resident working for a local tree service was killed yesterday when he was struck by a falling pine tree. 

Jon LaVigueur was cutting an 82-foot tree on 15th Street for Buzzell Tree Service of East Kingston when the pine fell on him about 12:40 p.m., police said.

This paragraph says the victim was cutting the tree. Does that me was running the saw? We don't really know!

Paula Campbell, who owns the home at 1 15th St. where LaVigueur and four other employees were working, said the men had tied a rope to the top of the tree. After one worker used a chain saw to make a cut in the trunk, the other men began pulling the rope.

Again, we don't really know who was running the saw, and who was pulling on the rope! My past experiences have shown innocent bystanders to be very poor whitnesses. 


When the tree started to fall, they ran. 

"He should have gone right or left," Campbell said, "but he tried to outrun the tree."

LaVigueur was slowed when his feet became entangled in weeds and bushes, causing the top of the tree to hit him in the back, she said. 

Neighbor Joe Mailhot of 2 15th St. witnessed the accident. He said the impact caused LaVigueur to be thrown. 

Not sure how getting hit from above in the back would cause one to be thrown. Did both of these innocent bystanders see the same thing?

Where does it say the victim was pulling on the rope? Someone posted a comment about him pulling on the rope, but was that an actual fact ? If the victim was the one with the saw, then the rope could have been plenty long, but the tree didn't fall as expected. 
I don't know what really happened here either, but I don't think we should be hanging the owner on hearsay or possible misquotes. If the newspaper account is close to accurate, then I think the owner is getting off pretty easy with "negligent homocide". 

If the victim was the one running the saw, we don't know if he was experienced enough for the task or not. He may have been running a saw since he was 10 years old, knew how to properly notch a tree, and just happened to get very unlucky on this cut. As I keep saying, we don't know the real facts here. 

I used to work for a tree company that never handed us groundies any PPE. I didn't start wearing a helmut until I started climbing, and that was because of things I learned here on AS while trying to learn as much as possible about climbing. Nobody wore chaps or ear protection for running chainsaws, just muffs around the chipper. They kept the saws in good shape, taught me to use the brake when moving to a new position or starting the saw. Kept the ropes and rigging gear in good shape as well, but just didn't push PPE. They were careful in how they rigged wood from a tree and tried not to tear up the yards on jobsites. I used to think it was a fair place to work.
Today, I have my own company. I hand every new guy a helmut and safety glasses and tell them they can expect to be fired if I see a bare head under a work tree. I recently ( last fall ) changed to wearing chainsaw pants while climbing. Nobody is allowed to even startup a saw until I personally train them or check them out. Chaps on for even one saw cut. I have a hard time keeping groundies because they think I'm too hard to work for. All I can say is, they aren't limping away and they have all their fingers and toes.

My point here is that even with all I'm trying to do to keep my employees safe, I don't meet the OSHA Logging standards. I would hate to have an accident and end up in prison because not everybody working for me was certified and current in First Aid and CPR.

VA


----------



## EdenT

VA-Sawyer said:


> This paragraph says the victim was cutting the tree. Does that me was running the saw? We don't really know!



Yeah, I always let inexperienced people fell 82' pine trees.



VA-Sawyer said:


> Again, we don't really know who was running the saw, and who was pulling on the rope! My past experiences have shown innocent bystanders to be very poor whitnesses.



No we can ignore the context and deny the sky is blu while we're at it. Bystanders, what about ufologists?



VA-Sawyer said:


> Not sure how getting hit from above in the back would cause one to be thrown. Did both of these innocent bystanders see the same thing?



I can tell you from personal experience that when you get hit by a branch, you fly. The best way to describe it is as though God leaned down out of a cloud and flicked me.



VA-Sawyer said:


> Where does it say the victim was pulling on the rope? Someone posted a comment about him pulling on the rope, but was that an actual fact ?



Yeah he cut the tree with a chainsaw until it started to fall and then managed to run 80' in the same direction the tree was falling before being hit. Heck I might make that my SOP for felling ops.



VA-Sawyer said:


> I don't know what really happened here either, but I don't think we should be hanging the owner on hearsay or possible misquotes. If the newspaper account is close to accurate, then I think the owner is getting off pretty easy with "negligent homocide".



So you think we should wait until a jury with absolutely no knowledge of tree removal operations decides for us? 



VA-Sawyer said:


> Today, I have my own company. I hand every new guy a helmut and safety glasses and tell them they can expect to be fired if I see a bare head under a work tree. I recently ( last fall ) changed to wearing chainsaw pants while climbing. Nobody is allowed to even startup a saw until I personally train them or check them out. Chaps on for even one saw cut. I have a hard time keeping groundies because they think I'm too hard to work for. All I can say is, they aren't limping away and they have all their fingers and toes.



Do you provide hearing protection or is that on the helmet? Do you have minimum standards of dress such as steel cap boots, a hat for when your not wearing a helmet. I have my own rules which say no shorts, painful in summer but then so are lots of incidental cuts and scratches on your legs.




VA-Sawyer said:


> My point here is that even with all I'm trying to do to keep my employees safe, I don't meet the OSHA Logging standards. I would hate to have an accident and end up in prison because not everybody working for me was certified and current in First Aid and CPR.



I am not sure whether not having a trained first aider is against regs, but it is foolish. What (other) OSHA standards do you think you don't meet?


----------



## VA-Sawyer

The OSHA logging standard requires EVERY employee to have current First Aid/CPR. No exceptions. Do you meet that standard ?


----------



## EdenT

VA-Sawyer said:


> The OSHA logging standard requires EVERY employee to have current First Aid/CPR. No exceptions. Do you meet that standard ?



No! Only our full time employees are trained in first aid. When we get casuals we get what we get. Mind you if we have a 'good' casual, they will usually be asked to work again and having First Aid is considered a good attribute.

I think that the tree service owner being charged is being _persectued_ because his company displays a complete lack of safety awareness. In this accident it is a series of events and choices that led to the young mans death. 

You have already made a systematic attempt to increase the safety of your workers. You have displayed the intent to keep your people safe. This guy didn't.


----------



## outofmytree

VA my business recently survived a wall-to-wall Worksafe (OSHA) check and came out with a half dozen minor changes to be made. It isnt hard to comply and the fact that you already take a strong stance on safety is to your credit. Coming up to standard is a small step from where you seem to be at the moment.

As to where the victim was and what he was doing. The eyewitness quoted was the owner of the house where the work was taking place. What she describes is in line with the logic of how such an accident could occur.



> LaVigueur was slowed when his feet became entangled in weeds and bushes, causing the *top* of the tree to hit him in the back, she said.



He was struck by the top of the tree not the trunk so yes he was hauling on the rope. The length of the rope is irrelevant as for whatever reason he and his co-workers were *INSIDE* the fell zone. Regardless of any other bad practises the business may use or endorse this alone warrants the full force of the law.


----------



## clearance

Endless speculation. Are there enough facts, say it again, facts, to hang the owner?:monkey:


----------



## EdenT

Well the state persecutor seems to think so.


----------



## clearance

EdenT said:


> Well the state persecutor seems to think so.



Thats why there are trials, for the truth be be found, hopefully.


----------



## EdenT

Wow, you were quick.

And there is endless speculation as we ask ourselves how this could have happened, and how can we prevent it happening to us.


----------



## outofmytree

clearance said:


> Endless speculation. Are there enough facts, say it again, facts, to hang the owner?:monkey:





> Thats why there are trials, for the truth be be found, hopefully.



Looks like you answered your own question there mate.

I choose to speculate, prior to trial, what the cause of this tragedy was. It is, as you correctly point out, speculation. After trial, if it is proven that the company owner was indeed negligent in his duty of care to his employees then and only then should he be hung out to dry. If I have given the impression he should be hung without trial I apologise. On the other hand, had this occurred to one of my sons on another mans job site I would braiding rope right now.


----------



## pdqdl

It's much more practical to just buy an old chunk of rope. Perhaps you would be satisfied with just tying the knot?


----------



## RVALUE

pdqdl said:


> Some of those citations sound like a vindictive bureaucracy seeking to get even for the unfortunate death of a worker.
> 
> Assess the work area to see if there were hazards that would require workers to wear protective equipment. *Really? It's only tree work!*
> 
> Make sure each employee wore foot protection such as heavy-duty logging boots. *I don't think the fellow died from injuries to his feet.*
> 
> Provide first-aid kits at work sites where trees were being cut. *It would have had to be one heck of a first aid kit to save him.*
> 
> Start chain saws on the ground. *Since when is that a rule? I have read manufacturer's instructions that tell you to hold the saw between your legs.*
> 
> Make sure brakes were engaged on the chain saw when it was started. *Since when is that a rule?*
> 
> I don't pretend to know all the OSHA rules, and these are all good things to do or have on the job. It sounds to me like a stack of petty charges, none of which would have saved the guy if they had been rigidly enforced.
> 
> 
> Some years back I had two idiots that almost got squished after the tree was pulled in their direction. They pulled a huge oak over, the rope went slack, and they stood there like posts, apparently mesmerized. The cutter yelled "RUN !!!", and they came to life before it got them. There was lots of room for there to be no risk to begin with, and they were not new to tree work.



Well put.


----------



## pdqdl

RVALUE said:


> Well put.



Not necessarily. 

Someone else above posted the rules that stipulate starting a chainsaw on the ground with then chain brake engaged. So I guess my question got answered, but my point was undermined by the fact that I didn't know those particular rules.

The real issue in this thread seems to be that we are collectively outraged that some poor newbie got crushed by being where he should never have been. Some are directing that ire at the owner of the business, and others (probably seeing themselves in that position) are a bit more lenient; turning instead on the feeble response of the government that is using it's misguided power to persecute the owner rather than taking steps that actually do something good. _I consider myself among the latter group._

The bottom line to this story is that the kid got killed in a preventable accident, and we should all take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening again. Like so many other fatalities and injuries that are posted here, there is nothing we can do once the damage has occurred. Prevention is the only treatment for this kind of incident.


----------



## outofmytree

pdqdl said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> Someone else above posted the rules that stipulate starting a chainsaw on the ground with then chain brake engaged. So I guess my question got answered, but my point was undermined by the fact that I didn't know those particular rules.
> 
> The real issue in this thread seems to be that we are collectively outraged that some poor newbie got crushed by being where he should never have been. Some are directing that ire at the owner of the business, and others (probably seeing themselves in that position) are a bit more lenient; turning instead on the feeble response of the government that is using it's misguided power to persecute the owner rather than taking steps that actually do something good. _I consider myself among the latter group._
> 
> The bottom line to this story is that the kid got killed in a preventable
> accident, and we should all take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening again. Like so many other fatalities and injuries that are posted here, there is nothing we can do once the damage has occurred. *Prevention is the only treatment for this kind of incident.*



:agree2: Would rep you if I could.


----------



## rarefish383

OK, if I step on someones toes so be it. I googled Buzzell tree service and all I got was his yellow page add. It actually said Bussell and Son Tree and Lawn service. Since it's a father and son operation I'm gonna ASSume he's been in business a while and he's not a new fly by night guy. Ultimately the buck stops at the boss. I would like to go after the guy with the saw. He could have stopped everything before anything happened. But, at the end of the day, the boss put the foreman in charge. As an owner you have to know who's running your op when your not there. Do I feel sympathetic for the owner. Of course. But that doesn't change the fact of who put the leader in charge. The rest of Buzzell's life is ruined. The boy's life is gone. How should he be punished, that's for the legal system. 

I changed my mind. I read his Yellow Page add and saw some things that prejudiced me and there were things that weren't in his add that I would like to have seen there. The thing I was going to say was opinionated and not based on any fact so I'm gonna keep my big mouth shut, Joe.


----------



## pdqdl

You would do well to be more careful. There are several different "Buzzell" tree services, and they have different area codes.



Look! I found this picture of the killer tree:

http://www.eagletribune.com/permalink/images_sizedimage_163014647/xl


----------



## woodbooga

Trial started today. As of this posting, 2 reader comments were posted and C&P below.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Negligent+homicide+trial+of+arborist+begins&articleId=26c455e0-5ad0-4006-b43f-233ff8d0815f



> *Tree felling negligent homicide trial begins*
> 
> By JAMES A. KIMBLE
> Union Leader Correspondent
> 4 hours, 11 minutes ago
> 
> BRENTWOOD – Workers were not properly equipped to take down an 80-foot pine tree in sections the day Jon Paul LaVigueur died, according to the prosecution at the trial of an East Kingston man charged with negligent homicide.
> 
> The men were using broken rope, too short to safely control the fall of a section of the massive 80-foot pine they were felling, the prosecution said yesterday in Rockingham County Superior Court.
> 
> Jurors began weighing today whether LaVigueur's boss, Maurice Buzzell, 53, of East Kingston, is guilty of negligent homicide and reckless conduct for creating unsafe work conditions that led to LaVigueur's death on Aug. 7, 2007, at a work site on 15th Street in Kingston.
> 
> After LaVigueur's body was removed that day, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigator determined Buzzell, owner of Buzzell Tree Service, was in violation of several safety standards.
> 
> Prosecutors say those violations led to LaVigueur's death.
> 
> "The defendant said, ‘Don't let go of the rope until the tree starts to fall,' " said Assistant County Attorney Amy Connolly in her opening remarks.
> 
> LaVigueur was one of three men pulling a rope tied to the tree. It was the practice at Buzzell's job sites for the men to scatter as a tree or tree section began falling, according to prosecutors.
> 
> "J.P., the victim, was the last in line," Connolly said. "You will hear from the employees there wasn't a lot of room to run.
> 
> "He ran but he didn't run fast enough," the prosecutor said.
> 
> The trial will include several eyewitnesses working with LaVigueur the day he died, along with testimony from police and industry experts. The defense contends prosecutors are citing safety standards that can't be applied to Buzzell's kind of tree cutting business and are expected to call their own experts.
> 
> "The guidelines the government (is using) have been misapplied," defense lawyer Steven Colella said. "This was not a logging operation. This was arborist work and this was, in fact, a completely different animal."
> 
> Colella suggested Buzzell actually made the work environment safer that day by instructing workers to lop off branches on a tree until it stood as a single pole before cutting it down.
> 
> "The process that took place that day was acceptable," he said. "It was a process that (LaVigueur) engaged in a 100 different prior occasions. This isn't something he was thrown into."
> 
> He said the only thing that didn't go as planned was the direction LaVigueuer ran to escape the falling tree's path.
> 
> Buzzell's trial is expected to last two to three days. If convicted on either charge, Buzzell is facing 3 1/2 to 7 years in state prison.
> 
> YOUR COMMENTS
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> You don't need room to run! The tree is only 1-3feet wide you needed to move away to the sides not run w/ the tree!!Its a case of looking to blame someone for their own negligence,There is only one person to blame for their actions,and he already paid for his mistake!!!!
> - Logger, Nottinham
> 
> is anyone else sick of this crap ????
> an awful accident happens and someone has to be lynched for it. ow my god !!! he was working with a short rope !!! he did have the option of going home instead of working under these ridiculous conditions !!! know why he didnt ?? he was lucky enough to have a job and needed to pay for heat and electric. im sure if buzzell followed all safty regulations and everything was up to code, hed have to charge a much higher price and he'd have NO work
> - ron, atkinson


----------



## murphy4trees

Short rope could have been rememdied by using wedges or a redirect block. Or simply get another rope and tie the two together... What kind of tree company only has one rope that is less than 100'..

They probably did have other ropes on the job, they just had a customary practice of pulling and running... as they said, we did it 100 times like that and never had a problem... Truth is they did have a problem, they just didn't see it as that... I heard Dr Ball give a talk at the penn-del ISA symposium yesterday.. he said he hears it all the time after a fatality.... "we've done it like that 100 times".. 

It is the owners responibility to provide a safe work environment.. Now running for your life as the tree is falling does not make a safe work environment IMO... What happens if someone trips or panics and runs the wrong way, or has a leg cramp? There are a lot of dangerous things that arborists do.. Its part of the job.. Sure people make mistakes and suffer from of lack of knowledge and training.. Freaky things happen.. But not here...what really bothers me about this one is how easy it would have been to minimize the risk to almost 0, by simply tying on an extension or put a redirect pulley on the tree... It is just common sense... Why play roulette with the workers lives when it all could be prevented with a simple extension.


----------



## murphy4trees

as to wether or not the owner's negligence is criminal... Glad its not up to me to decide... 3.5-7 is a long time... Hard to say... He needs to change his ways... Be a shame if he killed someone else cause he didn't change.. Maybe there should be some type of remedial arborists safety course, like they give drivers when they get too many points... 

This guy definitely needs to take one.. Maybe the owner should pay to have a safety consultant come and retrain the crew as part of the penalty...


----------



## murphy4trees

For clarity, and this comes from Dr John Ball, as I just heard him speak yesterday.. 
It is the employers responaability to provide a safe work environment..

And OSHA can use the logging standard (and other standards) on tree services and it does not matter what ANSI says. 

The above comes from Dr Ball.

I take that to be that OSHA may generally look at and accept the ANSI standards as safe practices, but is not bound by them..


----------



## Philbert

pdqdl said:


> . . . the feeble response of the government that is using it's misguided power to persecute the owner rather than taking steps that actually do something good.



It's hard for the safety guys (company, insurance, or government) to 'win' with some people.

Safety rules, guidelines, regulations, methods, equipment, PPE, etc. are almost all reactive - 'written in blood' so to speak. Something bad happens, or more importantly, a pattern of bad things happen, and the rules are devised to protect others.

If the 'safety guy' tries to gain acceptance for these BEFORE someone is hurt or killed, he's hit with a flurry of "That's never happened to ME!". "I've never used . . . " "My grandfather logged for 150 years and he never . . ." "None of the REAL (fill in whatever occupation here) use/do that!" "You don't know what you are talking about" etc. If the workers do not have personal experience with that particular bad experience there is tremendous resistance to the point that some go out of their way to find reasons why they will not use something or do something a certain way.

If the 'safety guy' comes out AFTER someone is hurt or killed, it's all "Why weren't YOU here before?" "Why didn't YOU prevent this instead of trying to find fault/assign blame afterward?".

The earlier post about OSHA rules and PPE has some truth: steel toed boots don't provide much protection against a widow maker. A hard hat doesn't protect against a chainsaw running against a boot. Gloves don't do much to prevent hearing loss, etc. Because it is impossible to know which thing is going to happen on a specific day, there are a number of rules, regs, etc. based on injury statistics that tell them what types of of things happen to tree cutters, loggers, etc. In this case, it might have been more about procedures and methods used than PPE. Different in another case.

The new guys don't know anything, so they trust that what their employer is telling them is the right thing to do, which is why I have little respect for the guy quoted at the end of Woodbooga's post (" . . . he did have the option of going home . . .")

You wouldn't want OSHA, or any regulatory agency, staring at you over your shoulder and watching you while you work, and there aren't enough safety guys in the world to do that anyway. So they use after the fact investigation and enforcement to send a message to others in the field. If a company owner or foreman doesn't believe in 'all that safety stuff', he might follow some of the regs to avoid potential fines/financial penalties.

If the owner of a company gets sent to jail because he/she intentionally put employees at risk, you better believe that it will get the attention of other companies in that business, a whole lot more that even fines will. It won't bring this worker back, but it could keep others from getting killed or maimed due to their employers indifference.

Philbert


----------



## outofmytree

Philbert said:


> It's hard for the safety guys (company, insurance, or government) to 'win' with some people.
> 
> Safety rules, guidelines, regulations, methods, equipment, PPE, etc. are almost all reactive - 'written in blood' so to speak. Something bad happens, or more importantly, a pattern of bad things happen, and the rules are devised to protect others.
> 
> If the 'safety guy' tries to gain acceptance for these BEFORE someone is hurt or killed, he's hit with a flurry of "That's never happened to ME!". "I've never used . . . " "My grandfather logged for 150 years and he never . . ." "None of the REAL (fill in whatever occupation here) use/do that!" "You don't know what you are talking about" etc. If the workers do not have personal experience with that particular bad experience there is tremendous resistance to the point that some go out of their way to find reasons why they will not use something or do something a certain way.
> 
> If the 'safety guy' comes out AFTER someone is hurt or killed, it's all "Why weren't YOU here before?" "Why didn't YOU prevent this instead of trying to find fault/assign blame afterward?".
> 
> The earlier post about OSHA rules and PPE has some truth: steel toed boots don't provide much protection against a widow maker. A hard hat doesn't protect against a chainsaw running against a boot. Gloves don't do much to prevent hearing loss, etc. Because it is impossible to know which thing is going to happen on a specific day, there are a number of rules, regs, etc. based on injury statistics that tell them what types of of things happen to tree cutters, loggers, etc. In this case, it might have been more about procedures and methods used than PPE. Different in another case.
> 
> The new guys don't know anything, so they trust that what their employer is telling them is the right thing to do, which is why I have little respect for the guy quoted at the end of Woodbooga's post (" . . . he did have the option of going home . . .")
> 
> You wouldn't want OSHA, or any regulatory agency, staring at you over your shoulder and watching you while you work, and there aren't enough safety guys in the world to do that anyway. So they use after the fact investigation and enforcement to send a message to others in the field. If a company owner or foreman doesn't believe in 'all that safety stuff', he might follow some of the regs to avoid potential fines/financial penalties.
> 
> If the owner of a company gets sent to jail because he/she intentionally put employees at risk, you better believe that it will get the attention of other companies in that business, a whole lot more that even fines will. It won't bring this worker back, but it could keep others from getting killed or maimed due to their employers indifference.
> 
> Philbert



:agree2:


----------



## treeslayer

LOCK HIM UP. 
the kid died as a result of his stupidity, and the Govt's responsibility in this case is to protect the workers from an unscrupulous boss who wants to make mo money, mo money.

was my son, wouldn't be a trial. not for him anyway.

And murph, who's Dr. Ball?


----------



## murphy4trees

John Ball..
He's a former tree care company owner and now teaches at South Dakota state U. He's done to my knowledge the most comprehensive research on fatalities in tree care and logging... He actually has figured out a way to get the info on tree fatalities from police, fire and hospitals... Then he's analized the data to figure out how we were killing ourselves and what can be done to prevent future deaths.. Really good work and he's a great speaker, in that his talks are both informative and will keep the audiences attention..


----------



## outofmytree

murphy4trees said:


> John Ball..
> He's a former tree care company owner and now teaches at South Dakota state U. He's done to my knowledge the most comprehensive research on fatalities in tree care and logging... He actually has figured out a way to get the info on tree fatalities from police, fire and hospitals... Then he's analized the data to figure out how we were killing ourselves and what can be done to prevent future deaths.. Really good work and he's a great speaker, in that his talks are both informative and will keep the audiences attention..



Chance of a link or an email address Daniel? I know a few owners who, like myself, would be very keen to see how and why these things happen. Even better if there are some pointers on prevention.


----------



## murphy4trees

I did a quick web search on him before the conference and didn't come up with much.. I know he's published a lot of info, so its out there... you juts gotta find.. Or get your local ISA chapter to bring him in.. he teaches EHAP too..


----------



## Philbert

outofmytree said:


> Chance of a link or an email address Daniel?



Assume that this is him?

Philbert

John Ball
Department of Horticulture, Forestry, Landscape & Parks
South Dakota State University
NPB 255D, Box 2140A
Brookings, SD 57007
[email protected]
Office: (605) 688-4737
Fax: (605) 688-4713


----------



## Ductape

*Business Owner Found Guilty In Death Of Employee*

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=37f7db6e-b4cf-4a61-9179-3cd8665c59bd


BRENTWOOD – An East Kingston business owner was found guilty of negligent homicide for causing a fatal workplace accident that killed his employee, 22-year-old Jon Paul LaVigueur, in August 2007.

A jury returned a verdict against Maurice Buzzell, 53, late Tuesday afternoon in Rockingham County Superior Court.


----------



## Dadatwins

I can tell all from experience at least in VA OSHA could care less about ANSI standards. If a tree is involved in an accident in Virginia the 1910 logging standard will be enforced. Does not matter if it is a a 2 man crew pruning a maple from a house or a whole team doing lot clearing. Treework = logging in Virginia. This is a sad story for all involved and from the looks of the articles the company owner had some scary work practices. Prayers to all involved and be careful.


----------



## Philbert

Sent out by OSHA:


Tree company owner guilty of negligent homicide in worker death

The owner of Buzzell Tree Service of East Kingston, N.H., was found guilty, by a jury, of criminally negligent homicide for causing a 22-year-old worker's death. The employer could face between three and seven years in prison. It is the first time in New Hampshire history that a jury found an employer guilty of criminally negligent homicide as a result of a death that did not involve a motor vehicle. The employer paid $12,000 in fines as part of a settlement agreement with OSHA for violating safety standards resulting in the worker's death.


----------



## treemandan

Crazy

As much as some of you guys complain about Osha and whatnot the truth is that with out osha and whatnot we would all be under the gun like John Paul.


----------



## murphy4trees

*they let him go*

Judge said no jail for the owner.. the victims family was not there for the setnecing..


----------



## mattfr12

outofmytree said:


> Maurice Buzzel may just as well have pushed that young man under the tree. This is gross negligence.
> 
> If the rope was long enough there is no way the tree could have fallen on him.
> 
> If he had adequate training for the job given him he may well have gone left or right with his coworkers.
> 
> If he had a hard hat on he may have recovered from his injuries.
> 
> If the escape paths had been cleared he may well not have tripped and died.
> 
> I own the company. I am responsible for my guys. Why does it take a young mans death for simple rules to be applied and enforced?
> 
> I hope the prosecution is succesful and that the result is broadcast loud and clear.
> 
> Yes this is a dangerous industry. Which is exactly why employers need to meet or exceed their legal obligations to their employees.



its a shame but no matter how much everyone preaches saftey and common sense for the most part people will continue to make careless mistakes. 

if the rope was that short i mean comon now what could someone be thinking i always try to use twice the amount of rope that is needed thiers no need to be near something like that.


----------



## outofmytree

mattfr12 said:


> its a shame but no matter how much everyone preaches saftey and common sense for the most part people will continue to make careless mistakes.
> 
> if the rope was that short i mean comon now what could someone be thinking i always try to use twice the amount of rope that is needed thiers no need to be near something like that.



Matt I cannot agree with this. In Australia we have a thing called "Duty of Care". Simply put it means an employer is supposed to look after his guys. The evidence we have to date shows that the owner did not provide enough equipment, training or supervision for his crew. 

I have worked with some very foolish people. I have even employed a couple of them. They didnt last long.... But they left alive and well, not in a pine box. 

In my opinion, and I do mean MY opinion, this employer should be behind bars. Negligence resulting in death warrants that penalty. 

My condolences to the family.


----------

