StudyBoss » Carbon monoxide » William Sawyer Case Study Essay

William Sawyer Case Study Essay

It is Mr. Sawyer’s opinion within reasonable toxicological certanty that, upon the analyses conducted to date and facts in the case, including the history of Det. Broehm’s incident, there is reasonable probable cause and sufficient evidence that the Mosquito Magnet® was the proximal cause of Mrs. McCool’s death. According to him there is evidence that the “Patriot Mosquito Magnet” (the McCool’s trap is an Independence model) is capable of releasing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions within th ge consistent with induction of restrictive airways which may have caused Mrs. McCool to suffer a transient hypoxia and dizziness that in turn caused her to fall onto the pool deck and into the pool producing the contusions on her skull. SC CU Mr. Sawyer also mentions that Mrs. McCool purchased Cutter Backyard TM Bug Control Outdoor Fogger on the day of her death and that she contracted a landscaping company that maintained her yard and shrubs.

He opines that if the Mosquito Magnet was incidentally sprayed with a sulfur-containing product by Mrs. McCool or by the landscaping maintenance personnel, then the exogenous contamination of the Magnet with sulfur containing sprays may have further enhanced the formation of sulfur dioxide. Sawyer also refers to Kaltofen’s findings that the propane used to fuel the McCool’s trap contained 44. 7 PPP (by weight) reduced sulfur. Additionally, Sawyer reiterates that the Patriot Mosquito Magnet is capable of producing toxic gases at levels of at least 2 PPM (5,244 ug/ m3) consistent with dose-dependent variable degrees of bronchoconstriction depending on the individual’s sensitivity to SO2.

According to him there are peer-reviewed studies that reveal that higher acute exposure levels among healthy nonasthmatics individuals greater than 1 PPM reveal mild to severe bronchoconstriction over a 1 PPM up to 40 PPM dose range producing severe bronchoconstriction at 40 PPM. Contrary to Dr. Di Maio’s report, Mr. Sawyer’s report fails to reference any possibility that Mrs. McCool inhaled toxic levels of carbon dioxide (CO). As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is totally absent in Mr. Sawyer’s report, except when summarizing records and testimony reviewed in preparation for his expert opinion.

Finally, to a reasonable toxicological certainty, Mr. Sawyer was unable to ascertain any alternative or reasonable cause of Mrs. McCool’s death and the adverse health effects experienced by Det. Broehm. • Dr. Marthinums van Schoor Report dated 12/11/15 Dr. van Schoor’s report is divided into different sections and subsections. The sections that are specific to his opinion are summarized below. It is Dr. an Schoor’s opinion that Woodstream “designed” the Mosquito Magnet and that their engineers had the responsibility to ensure that the trap was safe and reliable, which in turn called for an ASME engineering Code of Ethics.

According to Dr. van Schoor this Code states the following: – Engineers should hold paramount the lives, safety, health and welfare of the public. – Engineers shall not approve plans and/or specifications that are not safe for the public health and welfare according to engineering standards; When engineers’ professional judgments are over ruled by circumstances where the health and welfare of the public are endangered, engineers shall inform their clients or employers of the possible consequences; – Engineers should provide data and publish standards, test codes, and quality control procedures that would allow the users to understand the safe use of the products or systems; – Engineers show conduct review of safety and reliability of the designs, products, or systems before approving the design plans; When engineers observed conditions adverse to the public health and safety, during their employment, they should inform the proper authority of the situation; as well as if the engineers have knowledge of any violation of this Code by a person or firm, they should inform the proper authority of the violation.

Dr. van Schoor also opines that Woodstream knew that the Mosquito Magnet will operate unattended for lengthy periods of time on large and small residential areas where other methods of mosquito control such as spray of insecticides may have been used, and that if heated by the Mosquito Magnet, harmful or lethal gasses may be released.

He notes that the McCools had an agreement for rodent exclusion control, and lawn care with Hulett Environmental Services. The lawn care program called for turf spray, weed control and shrub insect control. Dr. van Schoor uses Mosquito Barrier as an example of a mosquito control spray that contains natural sulfur which if sucked or sprayed into the Mosquito Magnet’s diluting airflow may result in toxic and dangerous byproducts if there are interactions with the MM’s byproducts.

Dr. van Schoor states that the Mosquito Magnet’s manual warns against spraying insecticide in or around the trap, but that the warning provides no information as to why the Mosquito Magnet cannot be sprayed, nor the hazards associated with this foreseeable misused by any other person like the employee of a mosquito control service who is not aware of the warning in the manual. It is Dr. an Schoor’s opinion that “Woodstream designers” should have anticipated that pesticides and chemicals may be sprayed on or around the trap, and the composition of the sprayed pesticides with the gasses produced by the Mosquito Magnet may generate hazardous gasses. Consequently, and pursuant to Dr. van Schoor’s opinion, designers should have considered the need to add sensors that could detect harmful gasses, and that these sensors were needed for a more safe and reliable mosquito trap.

According to Dr. an Schoor, in order for the Mosquito Magnet to operate safely and reliably for a lengthy unattended period of time, Woodstream designers should have considered additional hazards like the use of propane that satisfies the HD-5 specification; environmental conditions (hot & freezing); malfunctioning of critical components such as the thermal sensor on the catalytic converter; PCB’s resistor failure allowing the production of carbon monoxide to exceed maximum limit; the foreseeable misuse of spraying the trap with insecticides; and outgassing plastic components that are near the high temperature surfaces which can burn children and adults or ignite clothing. Additionally, Dr. van Schoor states that Woodstream should have considered corrosion in humid and wet conditions to avoid corrosion of the Mosquito Magnet components. He suggests that Woodstream never subjected the Mosquito Magnet to an extensive environmental test.

Overall it is Dr. an Schoor’s opinion that Woodstream did not put the Mosquito Magnet through rigorous and formal reliability procedures to ensure that it was a safe and reliable product. Also, that pursuant to the testimony of Robert Cruz, Marko Lubic, and Gary Roulston, their hazard review process was limited to gas, gas shutoff, over-temperature, battery overvoltage, and missed the hazard that resulted in a unit that exceeded the maximum allowable carbon monoxide production during an official monitored test. Consequently, Dr. van Schoor opines that Woodstream did not use/follow accepted engineering design for safety and reliability practices which led to the place into commerce an unreliable and unsafe product.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.