In a case combining intentional product misuse, obviousness of risk, and extensive warnings, the Texas high court declines to look for some exception you could drive an aerial work platform through [Deborah LaFetra, Pacific Legal Foundation]
In a case combining intentional product misuse, obviousness of risk, and extensive warnings, the Texas high court declines to look for some exception you could drive an aerial work platform through [Deborah LaFetra, Pacific Legal Foundation]
One Comment
Hmmm.. seems simple enough to to have an interlink that dis-allows retracting the stabilizing legs when the lift is above some certain elevation. Sort of like having elevator doors only open when stopped at a floor.
Human nature is to take short cuts, especially when there is an overt incentive to do so; in most jobs, time is money and the quicker done, the sooner the next paying job starts. Even when the failure mode is open and obvious for intentional retraction, I would want such a safety mechanism to prevent even the accidental/unintended retraction of the legs; 40 feet is well above typical lethal fall distance.