Three plead not guilty in connection with electrocution death of boy

Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:58 AM | Contributed by supermandl

Three defendants pleaded not guilty Friday in connection with the Aug. 13 electrocution death of a Madison Township boy at the Lake County Fair in Ohio. The charges included manslaughter and reckless homicide. The boy was electrocuted when he touched a the railing of a bumper car ride at the fair, and died about a month later.

Read more from The Plain Dealer.

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:04 AM
Obviously we don't know the facts of the case yet, but charging the inspectors is very troubling. I mean, assuming for a moment that they didn't falsify any documents or not actually do the inspections, how can they be held accountable for the ride once they leave the site?
+0
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:32 PM
Well according to this article http://www.news-herald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10824906&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21849&rfi=8

The charges claim the ride was not properly grounded and the inspectors did not properly perform their duties because they did not find the problem
, I'm guessing they need a scapegoat that is credible.
+0
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:20 PM
I find it interesting that it was a problem with grounding. After working in the construction field and being involved with building of CATV sytems in NE Ohio, I know from dealing with inspectors that grounding (or bonding as it is known in CATV) is one of the main things electrical inspectors check. I'm curious to see more facts here pertaining to the circumstances because this never should have happened.
+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:03 AM
Lots of details missing here as usual. Obviously, a ride of this type must be properly grounded. If it wasn't, somebody is at fault.

It sounds thought like the prosecutor is casting a rather wide net. 3 indictments so far and more to come. And, a "mystery" expert witness. An expert witness cannot be a mystery. His credentials have to be known.

Another note. In most cases, the case against the inspectors would have to be based on "did they perform their inspections with due diligence". The prosecution cannot base its case against them simply on the fact that they didn't find the fault. The prosecution would also have to provide some sort of evidence to indicate that the fault was there when the inspeciton was performed. If they failed to perform the required inspections, falsified records, etc. then they are in big trouble

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...