Canopy - Clamp or Drill mount to ROPS??

[Soundguy]

So let me get this straight.....

Throughout this thread, YOUR contention has been MODIFICATIONS to a ROPS will void any warranties, and place you in great peril if and when a lawsuit emerges from a ROPS failure..

My point, specifically, has been that drilling or welding mods to a rops, , as the osha warning on every unit I've seen that was certified, states.. that the rops will no longer be certified. And that fact will most likely expose you to extra liability in a court issue, and -may or may not- expose you to any real danger in an actual accident.

MY contention has been from the get-go that installing a canopy USING THE SAME FASTENERS AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS O.E.M. is not incorrect even IF that mounting requires the addition of the drilled and tapped holes that would be present had a canopy been factory installed, but were not present in the case of NO CANOPY from the factory..

If the predrilled/tapped holes were present inthe rops, and you simply bought an oem canopy and used similar to oem hardware to mount it, i would agree.. no voiding o fthe rops certification just due to the fact that the canopy was user installed vs dealer installed. Now.. If you drill a hole to mount the canopy.. then I'd say that is a grey area of contention.... Even if the dealer would have had to drill a hole.. That single point opens up the possibility for claims and doubt. Likely a good lawyer may try to argue that the user drilled hole was not in the exact spot as the dealer would have placed it, and thus did not conform to the allowances by the rops certification. Whether this would actually come up.. who knows.. all I'm saying is that once you physically modify the rops past a condition as they were recieved as installed ont he tractor.. you may be opening yourself up for excess legal liability, aside from any real word danger issues, which may or may not happen.. though likely -won't- happen. I.E. if you drill or weld the rops.. you may be voiding the certification, even if the dealer would have done a similar act. etc.

Why would (in your instance, and expressed as the right way) an AFTERMARKET CANOPY, MOUNTED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THAN ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT, (i.e. clamps) be any better at standing up to that same jury? All it would do is bring one more defendant in to the lawsuit, but not in any way be any bit different than a NON-original equipment installation of an O.E.M. part done as was common practice in factory installs..

If the aftermarket canopy mount did not require modification to the rops, then i don't see any specific issues where the rops certification is being voided. The warning decal on my rops, for instance, is very specific.. it states that drilling or welding ont he rops structure -will- void the certification. it does not state that clamping something to the rops will or will not void the certification. That's my point. Whether an agressive lawyer may try to argue that a clamped on rops caused the certified rops failure.. well.. in our litigous society.. then i guess that is a possibility.. however i'd think it less of a possibility, then if it were a case of a drilled / welded rops in the same circumstance.

I fail to see where any LESS doubt would exist in the eyes of a jurist, concerning the possibility of the canopy CONTRIBUTING to the failure of the ROPS, be it "field installed with O.E.M. parts, OR "field installed" using aftermarket parts designed by someone OTHER THAN the ROPS manufacturer..

As I stated above.. my points focus around drilling/welding of the rops voiding the certification. My arguments do not concern with -who- installe dthe rops, or if it was oem equipment. My arguments only concern if the rops had to be drilled or welded on to mount the rops.

In any event, I'd prefer to go in front of a jury with parts and install that was exactly as it would have come from the assembly line, as opposed to something that is a compromise of "factory" engineering. Look back through the thread and you will read where I commented on ANY REASONABLE METHOD being acceptable. I still believe that. ..

I agree.. i would think that your best bet legally, in the event of a rops modification by drilling by the user, would be to try to show that your instalation matched the dealers instalation exactly, and they your drilling mod was exactly like the dealers... I think in my non-lawyer opinion.. that would be the best defense, as opposed to having simply not voided the certification by drilling.. etc.

However, I believe mounting a canopy EXACTLY as original equipment would be BETTER if and when it became a sticking point in a court of law, which seems to be the "no mans land" which seperates "sides" in this issue..

I agree.. most here, and even myself to some degree, do seem to agree, that the issue of voiding the rops certification due to minor drilling and welding is more of a legal/liability issue, vs an actual failure / real world danger issue... no arguments from me there.

Soundguy

 

[IslandTractor]

I agree.. most here, and even myself to some degree, do seem to agree, that the issue of voiding the rops certification due to minor drilling and welding is more of a legal/liability issue, vs an actual failure / real world danger issue... no arguments from me there.

Soundguy

I appreciate Soundguy's overall message is to be careful with this issue (point well taken) but I've not seen a single reference to actual ROPS failures in a CUT on TBN and certainly haven't seen any examples of how a ROPS failed due to having a few bolt holes drilled in the top or a few welds either. Even the legal issue would be relevant only if the ROPS actually failed through breakage that was directly related to the "drilling and welding"...right?

I think that sometimes the bizzare product liability cases sensationalized in the press have the unfortunate consequence of making reasonable people do unreasonable things in response. My point is that if failures are not being reported due to minor modifications (reasonable number of drill holes for canopy etc) then are there really any legal issues? I understand that OSHA will put in a caveat about modifications voiding certification but that is a typical blanket statement and would seem open to interpretation. Why are we focused so much on bolt holes and moderate amount of welding? Isn't putting a clamp on a ROPS a modification? The ROPS was not specifally tested with a clamp in place after all. Someone could clamp a long steel beam to the ROPS which would in fact make the ROPS fail in a rollover. I'm sure that OSHA and the company would appropriately consider that an untested modification. In a different hypothetical example, if the ROPS failed at the base (which is apparently where the most stress and failures would be) then why would a drilled bolt hole on the top horizontal piece be considered relevant at all?

 

[bill177]

Before you make any changes/modifications to a consumer product - ask yourself:

What is it going to be like sitting at the front table facing the judge with a "dollars interested only" lawyer at your side? If you are comfy with that scenario - then, by all means, cut, drill, weld all you desire.

I am sure the court will listen with rapt interest about your expansive design and engineering experience. Did I mention your educational background? Someone will.

No doubt the court will be impressed with your flannel shirt and worn work boots as a symbol of working knowledge.

With that said, I wonder what the court's impression will be of the manufacturer's legal team - including designers and engineers? All dressed in boring dark colored suits and having letters following their names.

You might win. After all, someone will draw a dumb jury once in a while - ask the hot coffee lady of McDonalds fame - and it might just be you.

This advice is not limited to only ROPs.

 

[IslandTractor]

Before you make any changes/modifications to a consumer product - ask yourself:

What is it going to be like sitting at the front table facing the judge with a "dollars interested only" lawyer at your side? If you are comfy with that scenario - then, by all means, cut, drill, weld all you desire.

I am sure the court will listen with rapt interest about your expansive design and engineering experience. Did I mention your educational background? Someone will.

No doubt the court will be impressed with your flannel shirt and worn work boots as a symbol of working knowledge.

With that said, I wonder what the court's impression will be of the manufacturer's legal team - including designers and engineers? All dressed in boring dark colored suits and having letters following their names.

You might win. After all, someone will draw a dumb jury once in a while - ask the hot coffee lady of McDonalds fame - and it might just be you.

This advice is not limited to only ROPs.

That is a good example of the thinking I don't like to see. Fear of urban legends and exaggerated half understood newspaper stories. Change the word tractor to patient and ROPS to lab test and you have described the crisis in "defensive medicine" that has caused costs to soar without necessarily improving quality of the patient's outcomes at all. Docs go around talking about these same hypothetical situations and scare themselves silly resulting in poorer, not better, clinical judgments.

I don't think a product liability lawyer is seriously going to take a contingency based case to go after an individual with a modified ROPS. If he would then he'd be just as likely to come after you because you did not sweep your front walk this morning or because you left the newspaper on the ground for someone to trip over or because you had a distracting decal on your car bumper that caused his client to rear end you. Those fancy experts you refer to cost him many thousands of dollars up front from his own pocket. McDonalds with its resources may be a target but how many of your neighbors have been sued for serving hot coffee?

You haven't addressed my earlier point. My point was that reasonable minor modifications are very unlikely to cause any safety problem to begin with. Are you suggesting that moderate drilling and welding are automatically bad but that any sort of clamp is fine? Wouldn't your same lawyer be asking you "Just where in the OSHA regulations did you read that you could clamp anything you wanted on the ROPS without it being considered a modification?"

We live in a country where anyone can sue just about anytime but if you let that fact influence your life too much YOU lose.

 

[Soundguy]

My rops certificate specifically names out cutting, drilling, welding. Doesn't mention clamping.. I'm guesisng many are worded that way.. thus those are the big 'buzzpoints' that are getting thrown around.

Where osha is concerned.. many things can get you a fine.. even with no accident. We have been fined for not having a chanin shield on an out of service piece of equipment... the out of service tag had fallen off.

no employee was injured by this machine.. just static, setting there.. it was dangerous.. and we were cited.

I guess a real -@n@l osha inspector could decide a weld modification to a previously certified rops could be a safety violation.. even if no one had been hurt.. (yet ) or (ever ).. That my point.. purely hypothetical.

I don't have enough insurance to be the test case for the rops modification / liability lawyer types... I've worked hard for my little bit of money I have.. i don't feel like giving it away because I want to weld a lamp on to my rops to make it look pretty, vs clamping it on.

But yes.. you were 100% correct.. my statements were meant to sound carefull.. or .. overly carefull, and about liability... for those of you that are rich and are risk takers.. my message obviously sounds thin and weak.. I accept that.

Soundguy

I appreciate Soundguy's overall message is to be careful with this issue (point well taken) but I've not seen a single reference to actual ROPS failures in a CUT on TBN and certainly haven't seen any examples of how a ROPS failed due to having a few bolt holes drilled in the top or a few welds either. Even the legal issue would be relevant only if the ROPS actually failed through breakage that was directly related to the "drilling and welding"...right?

I think that sometimes the bizzare product liability cases sensationalized in the press have the unfortunate consequence of making reasonable people do unreasonable things in response. My point is that if failures are not being reported due to minor modifications (reasonable number of drill holes for canopy etc) then are there really any legal issues? I understand that OSHA will put in a caveat about modifications voiding certification but that is a typical blanket statement and would seem open to interpretation. Why are we focused so much on bolt holes and moderate amount of welding? Isn't putting a clamp on a ROPS a modification? The ROPS was not specifally tested with a clamp in place after all. Someone could clamp a long steel beam to the ROPS which would in fact make the ROPS fail in a rollover. I'm sure that OSHA and the company would appropriately consider that an untested modification. In a different hypothetical example, if the ROPS failed at the base (which is apparently where the most stress and failures would be) then why would a drilled bolt hole on the top horizontal piece be considered relevant at all?

 

[Farmwithjunk]

My point, specifically, has been that drilling or welding mods to a rops, , as the osha warning on every unit I've seen that was certified, states.. that the rops will no longer be certified. And that fact will most likely expose you to extra liability in a court issue, and -may or may not- expose you to any real danger in an actual accident.




If the predrilled/tapped holes were present inthe rops, and you simply bought an oem canopy and used similar to oem hardware to mount it, i would agree.. no voiding o fthe rops certification just due to the fact that the canopy was user installed vs dealer installed. Now.. If you drill a hole to mount the canopy.. then I'd say that is a grey area of contention.... Even if the dealer would have had to drill a hole.. That single point opens up the possibility for claims and doubt. Likely a good lawyer may try to argue that the user drilled hole was not in the exact spot as the dealer would have placed it, and thus did not conform to the allowances by the rops certification. Whether this would actually come up.. who knows.. all I'm saying is that once you physically modify the rops past a condition as they were recieved as installed ont he tractor.. you may be opening yourself up for excess legal liability, aside from any real word danger issues, which may or may not happen.. though likely -won't- happen. I.E. if you drill or weld the rops.. you may be voiding the certification, even if the dealer would have done a similar act. etc.







If the aftermarket canopy mount did not require modification to the rops, then i don't see any specific issues where the rops certification is being voided. The warning decal on my rops, for instance, is very specific.. it states that drilling or welding ont he rops structure -will- void the certification. it does not state that clamping something to the rops will or will not void the certification. That's my point. Whether an agressive lawyer may try to argue that a clamped on rops caused the certified rops failure.. well.. in our litigous society.. then i guess that is a possibility.. however i'd think it less of a possibility, then if it were a case of a drilled / welded rops in the same circumstance.






As I stated above.. my points focus around drilling/welding of the rops voiding the certification. My arguments do not concern with -who- installe dthe rops, or if it was oem equipment. My arguments only concern if the rops had to be drilled or welded on to mount the rops.



I agree.. i would think that your best bet legally, in the event of a rops modification by drilling by the user, would be to try to show that your instalation matched the dealers instalation exactly, and they your drilling mod was exactly like the dealers... I think in my non-lawyer opinion.. that would be the best defense, as opposed to having simply not voided the certification by drilling.. etc.




I agree.. most here, and even myself to some degree, do seem to agree, that the issue of voiding the rops certification due to minor drilling and welding is more of a legal/liability issue, vs an actual failure / real world danger issue... no arguments from me there.

Soundguy

Long and short of it, IF the issue of a ROPS failure ends up in the hands of a jury, we all roll the dice and hope for seven. I'll take my chances with an install exactly like the factory. The fact that a clamp on canopy ISN'T mentioned in a disclaimer on a ROPS doesn't in any way, shape or form absolve the canopy manufacturer, or the person who installs it from legal responsibility, not a battle with ROPS manufacturer, should a claim involving loss of life be involved.

Disclaimers aren't worth the paper they're printed on or the ink they're printed with in the eyes of a sharp lawyer. In most all cases, they're just to discourage people from getting a lawyer and going hunting for a big settlement.

The fact that this "debate" has taken on a life of it's own is prime example of what would happen in a court or in a warranty claim. . . . .

10,000 opinions and none are carved in stone fact.

 

[JerryG]

A simple well-designed clamp is all that is needed. It doesn't need to be fancy. It doesn't have to be tacky if you use a little thought. There would be no warranty problems, no rust on the inside from welds or from the drilled holes and it can be removed or sold to an individual or a dealer without a penalty or deduction.

 

[IslandTractor]

A simple well-designed clamp is all that is needed. It doesn't need to be fancy. It doesn't have to be tacky if you use a little thought. There would be no warranty problems, no rust on the inside from welds or from the drilled holes and it can be removed or sold to an individual or a dealer without a penalty or deduction.

Jerry, please don't be so practical. We're having a good hypothetical argument here.

 

[Soundguy]

I think I'll add a final thought to this discussion.. as most of the opinions here have already been expressed many times already.. reworded.. rehashed and so on.

Would anyone here take a hole punch to their seatbelt in their car.. a few punches here.. a few there... probably won't hurt it.. probably just as strong. etc. I sure wouldn't.. yet.. there is a large population in this thread that are saying they would do just that... modify a safety device in a way that specifically voids it's certification. How about taking a razor and just nicking the seatbelt in 2? 2? 4? places. Will it hold you in an accident? probably? maybee? Will it hold your wife, kid or neighbor who uses or borrows the tractor?

Just stuff to think about. I've said my piece... I'm erring on the side of safety... there is onviously no penalty on that decision.. except I may have clamps on my rops that may not win a beauty contest... that doesn't concern me much.. With a single exception.. my tractors are workers.. not beauty queens.

I realize lots of you guys here are just working your tractors too.. and alre looking for an easy way to do something. personally? I'm a big fan of personal freedom, and freedom of choice.. even when it leads to high darwinism rates.. that's a personal choice that I think we should be able to make.. and not have a governing body reign us in with. On the flip side.. we need to take full personable responsibility to the consequences to our actions, and to the chain of events our actions cause.

I'm not sure I can add anything else usefull.. though i do intend to hang around and read the rest of the posts... it's a most interesting discussion.. might even find something to reply to along the way. And just for claritie's sake.. i fully acknowledge the autonomy of each individual here, and your soverign right to make your own choices be it safe or otherwise.

good luck to all.

nuff' said.

Soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I think I'll add a final thought to this discussion.. as most of the opinions here have already been expressed many times already.. reworded.. rehashed and so on.

Would anyone here take a hole punch to their seatbelt in their car.. a few punches here.. a few there... probably won't hurt it.. probably just as strong. etc. I sure wouldn't.. yet.. there is a large population in this thread that are saying they would do just that... modify a safety device in a way that specifically voids it's certification. How about taking a razor and just nicking the seatbelt in 2? 2? 4? places. Will it hold you in an accident? probably? maybee? Will it hold your wife, kid or neighbor who uses or borrows the tractor?

Just stuff to think about. I've said my piece... I'm erring on the side of safety... there is onviously no penalty on that decision.. except I may have clamps on my rops that may not win a beauty contest... that doesn't concern me much.. With a single exception.. my tractors are workers.. not beauty queens.

I realize lots of you guys here are just working your tractors too.. and alre looking for an easy way to do something. personally? I'm a big fan of personal freedom, and freedom of choice.. even when it leads to high darwinism rates.. that's a personal choice that I think we should be able to make.. and not have a governing body reign us in with. On the flip side.. we need to take full personable responsibility to the consequences to our actions, and to the chain of events our actions cause.

I'm not sure I can add anything else usefull.. though i do intend to hang around and read the rest of the posts... it's a most interesting discussion.. might even find something to reply to along the way. And just for claritie's sake.. i fully acknowledge the autonomy of each individual here, and your soverign right to make your own choices be it safe or otherwise.

good luck to all.

nuff' said.

Soundguy

Being proned to do things IN THE SAFEST MANNER POSSIBLE, I tend to prefer doing things as they were engineered by original equipment manufacturers, as opposed to add-on, aftermarket compromise methods "designed" by someone who had nothing to do with the original ROPS structure design. I'm more than positive that Ford (New Holland), Massey Ferguson, John Deere, Kubota, ect.... TEST and research their products before they market them. While there may be some manufacturers that employ clamped on canopies (O.E.M.), all of them I've ever seen are firmly, positively BOLTED directly to the ROPS. If it's good enough for the people who designed and built the tractor with full intention of standing behind their products (both in the field or in a court of law should it come to that...), it's good enough for me.

My tractors work for a living. They are used in conditions where a roll-over wouldn't be an unlikely scenario. (Steep hilly ground) Much thought has gone into "what's the strongest method" to provide SAFTEY as opposed to what makes the best debate material on an internet website.

No one suggested "punching holes in seat belts". Not sure where that analogy came from. Certainly not from anything previously mentioned in this (or any other) post.