Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

carefully examined the case file, and found that Lapenko and Khrapov were guilty of the crime. i. e. the court managed to find a direct causal connection between the violations of construction rules committed by each and the death of Petrova on site.

That finding was corroborated not only by the testimonies of the persons criminally liable for the death of crane operator Petrova. It was also confirmed by objective evidence and numerous witnesses, including public officials and those who were present at the scene. All that gave the court an insight into the offense consisting in criminal acts and omissions by defendants Lapenko and Khrapov. They consciously violated construction safety regulations, which resulted in the death of victim Petrova.

Witness Murina was interviewed at the initiative of the court. She testified that she was operating Petrova’s crane on January 14. At that time, foreman Lapenko asked her to unload a panel trailer. which she refused to do. Petrova took up that task on the next day. Neither Murina nor Petrova knew the actual weight of the panels. This allowed for an overload that resulted in the crane collapse and Petrova’s death. Murina believed none of this would have happened if foreman Lapenko had provided them with reliable information about the load weight.

Witness Kachin, crane operator, was also interviewed at the initiative of the court. He stated that none of the crane operators or slingers had accurate information on the weight of the PZh-43-1 panels. Kachin explained that no slinging schematic was available for the panels, although providing such instructions was the foreman’s responsibility. That allowed Khrapov and Petrova’s to erroneously determine the load mass in the absence of foreman Lapenko, who was obliged to instruct them on the weight of construction materials.

Another witness interviewed at the initiative of the court was Treskov, installation fitter. He testified that he was walking past slinger Khrapov while the latter was slinging a load from the panel trailer. Treskov heard Petrova tell Khrapov to hook six panels, which he did. Treskov was wrong about the weight of the PZh-43-1 standard panels, considering them much lighter than they actually were. The slinger and the crane operator made the same mistake. According to Treskov, that weight was the reason why the crane toppled and Petrova died.

Witness Panov testified that he had trained Petrova in crane operation, a profession that brooks no violation of safety principles. During the accident, Panov saw the crane topple and fall on its boom from overload, while Petrova was thrashing about in the cab. The crane hit the ground, bounced, and fell again. Panov said that the load was standard, yet he did not know the actual weight of the PZh-43-1 panels at that time. He supposed that was the reason why Petrova got confused. She would not have raised or moved the load if she knew that its actual mass was way above the crane’s capacity.

Other witnesses affirmed to the court that the crane was in good technical condition before the accident and that Petrova was sufficiently skilled and experienced to operate it.

Construction managers did not deny in court that foreman Lapenko and slinger Khrapov violated construction norms while working at the site. Both witnesses suggested why the crane toppled down bringing about the death of Petrova. They believed that the overload protector did not work as expected because Petrova had tampered with it. They cited the absence of seal on the overload protector relay unit and the presence of foreign items in the crane cab.

A similar assumption about the cause of the accident followed from the position of the defendants and their counsels.

For that reason, the court carefully checked the facts above, as they hadn’t been considered during the preliminary investigation. All doubts were interpreted in favor of the defendants. Given the lack of reliable facts or of the opportunity to gather new evidence, the court admitted that the crane overload protector could indeed have malfunctioned because crane operator Petrova had forcibly disabled it.

However, the court did not find that it was the proximal cause of the crane collapse and victim Petrova’s death, stating that those events were the result of slinger Khrapov and foreman Lapenko violating construction regulations. The defendants failed to provide the slinging schematic and the correct weight of those PZh-43-1 panels. In fact, the weight of each panel significantly exceeded the standard panel weight that crane operators, including Petrova, were aware of—1,950 kg instead of 1,200 kg, causing the crane to overload and collapse and Petrova to die.

Unaware of that fact, Petrova raised and moved the cargo. She firmly knew that the crane’s maximum safe load capacity was 9 tons, while the actual hoisted weight was 11 tons 200 kilograms. To say that the critical overload was the crane operator’s fault would not reflect reality. In view of Petrova’s professional experience and other facts, the court could not consider her fault a credible circumstance.

However, the court found at trial that victim Petrova’s acts contributed to the crime committed by defendants Lapenko and Khrapov. Indeed, she raised the load without taking into account any possible weight errors, allowing for overload to happen.

Foreman Lapenko’s criminal negligence arises from the fact that neither the slinger nor the crane operator knew the actual weight of PZh-43-1. Lapenko directly violated construction regulations by creating a dangerous possibility of crane overload, which was translated into action by slinger Khrapov in breach of the rules. As a result, the crane collapsed and Petrova died.

The fact that the tower crane collapse was caused by overload was corroborated by the machine’s position on the scene. The cargo was still hooked, and victim Petrova was inside the cab.

A special investigation was conducted by the Federal Mining and Industrial Safety Inspectorate of the RSFSR. It was concluded that the accident was caused by an 80 % overload in excess of crane specifications, attributable to foreman Lapenko and slinger Khrapov who violated construction regulations.

A