Jury orders John Deere to pay $5 million for Stillwater man's tractor death

[Fuddy1952]

My findings exactly. In training hundreds of women to use handguns, I found that Women made far far better students because they followed my directions because they KNEW that they didn't know a darn thing about the subject. They blindly followed my instructions from the start, and their progress reflected that. Men make VERY lousy students when taking instructions, because they almost always feel that they "know better" or think that they should. And their pride will often get in the way.

Very few women will not instantly obey your instructions and try to carry them out to the best of their ability. I would say that over half of the men intentionally disagree with your instructions, because they feel it is their duty to confront you for fear of losing their mancard.

True!
My repair business I hired many guys over the years not worth a hoot...women were the best, the best my wife! She also has built engines, super attention to detail, focused and they stayed together! She's also built many carburetors, same thing.

 

[s219]

I thought the manual just said ballast should be used -- it doesn't actually say the manufacturer/dealer has to supply ballast with a new tractor, does it? Some people already own ballast or own/buy an implement that could be used as ballast. To me it's a stretch to suggest the dealer needs to supply a dedicated ballast box.

 

[aczlan]

Doesn't say if the tractor was operated in an unsafe manner. Obviously by an inexperienced operator. Sad, but always someone else is to blame.

The operator was not wearing his seatbelt and either the rollbar was down or he was operating on a very steep slope as it rolled over 1 and 1/4 times.
As such I would say that it was being operated in a unsafe manner (whether intentionally, due to ignorance/lack of experience, etc).

Aaron Z

 

[dragoneggs]

The operator was not wearing his seatbelt and either the rollbar was down or he was operating on a very steep slope as it rolled over 1 and 1/4 times.
As such I would say that it was being operated in a unsafe manner (whether intentionally, due to ignorance/lack of experience, etc).

Aaron Z

Yeah 1.25 rolls I would think would be hard to do especially if the ROPS was up. If it was, the hill must of been pretty dang steep and a newbie should have been puckering well beforehand. I don't get this one. If the ROPS was down, then it makes the verdict even more ridiculous.

 

[MHarryE]

I’ve been involved defending against a liability lawsuits in OK and learned it is difficult to go to a jury unless something is clearly wrong. Something has to be missing here. One case summary judgement - meaning court dismissed - because operator not wearing seatbelt despite OM stating it must be used. Another failed to use equipped safety lock when doing maintenance. Out of curiosity, I checked my Kubota loader manual and it distinctly states it is the operator’s responsibility to ballast using tire plus rear ballast. It goes on to state the tire ballast may not be required if weight on the 3 point is adequate. In fact one could almost say the loader is not usable if one follows the manual as it states not to move the machine unless the loader is as close to the ground as possible. There may be something not covered in the article or they may have ruled on the checklist stating it must be ballasted before delivery. My fatal accident investigations - seat belt in proper condition and being used - if no, take pictures to document and fly home as case will be dismissed. I’ve had one tossed in OK - sued for not having a seat switch - operator was not belted in, was standing while driving, hit a rock and was thrown, run over and crushed. ISO requirement clearly states when seat switch is required - it’s based on height of controls from the ground - so OK court dismissed the suit when filed.

It’s correct suits will be against anyone involved the lawyer can think of. I’ve been in a case where even the local auto parts store was listed as they supplied the grease the customer used.

Deere had to feel confident they would win. Normally they wouldn’t let this type get to trial.

 

[WranglerX]

If you get all the necessary safety features in place to protect the one(s) looking for Darwin award, it a totally useless machine....

Dale

 

[MossRoad]

You guys are all talking about rear weight. The operator's manual for that tractor says to use FRONT WEIGHTS with the 305 loader.

You might want to read this.

OMLVU28456

It's the 3032E, and 3038E Compact Utility Tractors Operator's Manual (NA, January 2014).

This is the Ballasting Machine section from the 3032E, and 3038E Compact Utility Tractors Operator's Manual (NA, January 2014).

Ballasting Machine section

It says with the 305 loader, to use implement code 52.

Implement code 52 says to use 9 (nine) 72 pound weights ON THE FRONT OF THE MACHINE.

If the operator's manual says to use nine 72 pound weights on the front of the machine, and there were NO weights on the front of the machine (the lawsuit says the machine wasn't ballasted from the dealer), and the owner put a box blade on the back, that would actually MAKE THE TRACTOR MORE UNSTABLE, as it would take even more weight off of the front end.

Read that entire ballasting page. It specifically says to use front weights with that loader. Then it also talks about rear wheel weights, fluid in the tires, ballast boxes on the rear hitch, etc...

When you start reading it, read it again a few times. You'll be totally confused as to what the proper way to ballast the machine actually is. Given this, I'm kinda surprised we haven't seen lawsuits on this issue before.

I'm not taking sides in either case. But the school of thought here on TBN (and expressed many times in just this thread) is that if you have an FEL on a tractor you should ballast the rear, but according to the ballasting section of this tractor's operator's manual, you should ballast the front.

Enjoy the read and have a sleepless night. :ashamed:

 

[IceStationZebra]

- Reading a reporter's story on the trial - we all know that information will be missing or misconstrued.
- In a case like this all related company documents are discoverable by the legal team. The safety engineer, which part of their job is to appear in court, may not have had much leeway in their answer based on what was in the documents.
- Logic goes out the window with a jury trial. Juries often feel that a big company can afford to award the poor widow/family. Nor do they usually have any relevant experience - the prosecuting attorney will make sure of that!
- Tractors are reconfigurable machines and are not sold as a fixed configuration ready-to-work devices. Owner is responsible to make sure they follow the manual. (if the manual is wrong or confusing then OEM is negligent)
- One of the first lines in every manual will say "completely read and understand this manual before operation". If you don't it should be your fault, including seat belt and ROPS.
- Ballast location would be important if the tractor will be working uphill with the loader up high. In this scenario 3pt weight would increase the propensity to tip over backward and filled tires may be a better choice.
- The tractor owner can call a tire dealer to fill their tires, the dealer isn't the only place to have this done.
- "Hobby" level machinery in general is less stable, used in more unconventional situations, and the operators have much less experience. That is a recipe for disaster if the operator isn't on the ball.

A company I worked for years ago was sued by a carpenter that tipped over a telehandler and lost both his legs just below his knees. He did everything wrong - admitted to drinking a 5th of vodka and 6-pack for lunch, didn't wear his seatbelt, backed kiddy-corner into a ditch with forks way up and empty, didn't have ballast in the front tire, and he jumped instead of bracing himself in the cab. Jury took pity on him and awarded him $$$.

Same company, roofing contractor created their own 8ft x 4ft x 4ft box to dump shingle scraps into. They park the machine with the box just under the eve and proceed to tear off the roof. A mason goes under the forks to hook up a water hose just when they overload the machine which tips and kills the mason. Conveniently the box disappeared before OSHA showed up. The contractor had no money so the widow sues OEM for an "inherently unstable machine" and our insurance company settled.

ISZ

 

[aczlan]

You guys are all talking about rear weight. The operator's manual for that tractor says to use FRONT WEIGHTS with the 305 loader.
You might want to read this.
OMLVU28456
It's the 3032E, and 3038E Compact Utility Tractors Operator's Manual (NA, January 2014).
This is the Ballasting Machine section from the 3032E, and 3038E Compact Utility Tractors Operator's Manual (NA, January 2014).
Ballasting Machine section
It says with the 305 loader, to use implement code 52.
Implement code 52 says to use 9 (nine) 72 pound weights ON THE FRONT OF THE MACHINE.
If the operator's manual says to use nine 72 pound weights on the front of the machine, and there were NO weights on the front of the machine (the lawsuit says the machine wasn't ballasted from the dealer), and the owner put a box blade on the back, that would actually MAKE THE TRACTOR MORE UNSTABLE, as it would take even more weight off of the front end.
Read that entire ballasting page. It specifically says to use front weights with that loader. Then it also talks about rear wheel weights, fluid in the tires, ballast boxes on the rear hitch, etc...
When you start reading it, read it again a few times. You'll be totally confused as to what the proper way to ballast the machine actually is. Given this, I'm kinda surprised we haven't seen lawsuits on this issue before.
I'm not taking sides in either case. But the school of thought here on TBN (and expressed many times in just this thread) is that if you have an FEL on a tractor you should ballast the rear, but according to the ballasting section of this tractor's operator's manual, you should ballast the front.
Enjoy the read and have a sleepless night. :ashamed:

That is the max weight to ballast the tractor to pull implements (ie: a plow, disc, bushhog, etc).
To get the ballast information for the loader, you need the loader manual.
IIRC, that tractor had a 305 loader, that manual is at: OMW56436
The ballasting section is at: OMW56436
It says:

Required Minimum Tractor Ballast
CAUTION: To help prevent the possibility of personal injury or death caused by tractor and loader roll over, DO NOT operate tractor and loader unless it is equipped with proper ballast.
The amount of ballast listed in the chart is the minimum required for normal loader operation. For some operations, additional ballast is required to maximize stability.
IMPORTANT: When adding ballast, do not exceed maximum tire carrying capacity shown on sidewall.
REQUIRED MINIMUM BALLAST FOR 3032E, 3036E, and 3038E TRACTORS
Option
1. 370 kg (816 lb.) of rear hitch ballast
2. 250 kg (551 lb.) of rear hitch ballast and fluid-filled rear tires (108 kg [238 lb.] fluid and tire).
3. 170 kg (375 lb.) of rear hitch ballast and fluid-filled rear tires (108 kg [238 lb.] fluid and tire) and 6 rear wheel weights (140 kg [309 lb.] total).
4. 295 kg (650 lb.) of rear hitch ballast and 6 rear wheel weights (140 kg [309 lb.] total).
Rear hitch ballast is required in all instances. Fluid filled tires are only required in some instances. Fill tires 3/4 full with a mixture of 1.6 kg (3.5 lb.) calcium chloride and 4 L (1 U.S. gal).

So, with 816# of ballast called for in the manual and 418# on the three point, he had half the ballast that he should have (assuming unloaded tires and no wheel weights).
Per: OMW56436 he needed the small ballast box loaded with concrete, or the small ballast box with extensions, loaded with sand.

Aaron Z

 

[MossRoad]

That is the max weight to ballast the tractor to pull implements (ie: a plow, disc, bushhog, etc).
To get the ballast information for the loader, you need the loader manual.
IIRC, that tractor had a 305 loader, that manual is at: OMW56436
The ballasting section is at: OMW56436
It says:

So, with 816# of ballast called for in the manual and 418# on the three point, he had half the ballast that he should have (assuming unloaded tires and no wheel weights).
Per: OMW56436 he needed the small ballast box loaded with concrete, or the small ballast box with extensions, loaded with sand.

Aaron Z

Good info. It certainly gets confusing. :confused2: