When human factors and biomechanics professionals are retained to evaluate injury accidents, environmental design, hazard management and other relevant issues must be considered to develop opinions. This case study evaluates a forensic human factors and biomechanics case where a woman alleged that a water ride at an amusement park shot pressurized water into her ear, resulting in injuries. When evaluating the case, water droplet data was collected and relevant communication and system design factors were considered, along with the plaintiff’s personal knowledge and habits. This case illustrates when interactive environmental features result in a failure to warn and injuries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KalsherM.WilliamsK. (2006). Behavioral Compliance. In Wogalter (Ed.) Handbook of Warnings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, p. 313-331.
2.
Lee. (2007). Chapter 17. URS Corporation. Guidance Protocol for School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis. Austin: URS Corporation, 2007: A-1, Page 237
3.
MaddenM.S. (2006). Duty to warn in products liability. In WogalterM. S. (Ed.), Handbook of Warnings (2006). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., p. 583-587
4.
StewartC. (2006). Blast Injuries: Preparing for the Inevitable. Emergency Medical Practice. Vol. 8 No. 4.
VredenburghA.G.ZackowitzI.B. (2006). Warning expectations. In WogalterM. (Ed.) The Handbook of Warnings: Design and Use. Chapter 41. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 345-354.
7.
WogalterM.S. (2006). Purposes and Scope of Warnings. In Wogalter
(Ed.) Handbook of Warnings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, p. 3-9.
8.
WogalterDeJoyLaughery (1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. (p. 4-5). Taylor & Francis.; Purposes and Scope of Warnings. (2006). In Wogalter Ed. Handbook of Warnings. (p. 4-5). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
