Trial opens in suit over man’s death

Being sucked into a giant fan often is portrayed in suspense movies as an ultimate horror.

It shouldn’t happen in real life, a Colfax widow says in a wrongful death trial in which testimony will begin Monday in Spokane.

Attorneys for Lynn Crisp are seeking “substantial” damages from several companies associated with a man-size, 75-horsepower fan that hacked Joel P. Crisp to death on April 20, 2000, at the University of Idaho.

Part of the damages being sought include lost income estimated at between $800,000 and $1.2 million.

The trial is being conducted before Spokane County Superior Court Judge Kathleen O’Connor under a combination of Idaho and Washington law. It is expected to last at least through the end of the month.

The lawsuit on behalf of Crisp’s widow and his four sons was filed here because one of the defendants is a Spokane company and because Crisp was a Washington resident.

Defendants include Spokane-based MW Consulting Engineers, Boise-based Armstrong Architects, Oregon-based Pace Corp. and Pace’s Pennsylvania-based parent, York International Corp.

Crisp, 43, was an “HVAC control technician,” employed by the UI to work with computerized heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems in campus buildings.

On the day he died, Crisp had been called to deal with a complaint about the performance of a massive “air-handling unit” in the newly remodeled Gauss Engineering Building. When Crisp failed to come home on time, his wife called his supervisor.

The supervisor went to the metal-enclosed air-handling unit where Crisp had been sent.

“It was readily apparent, readily apparent, that Mr. Crisp had come into this fan and tragically been killed,” family attorney Jim King said in opening statements Thursday, pausing for jurors to imagine the gruesome details he wasn’t allowed to give.

The trial began Wednesday with jury selection, and was recessed after lawyers laid out their cases to jurors. It will resume Monday.

No one knows exactly what happened because Crisp was alone, but monitors show the fan was running when Crisp entered the room containing it. The light in the room was off, and there is conflicting evidence about whether it was working at the time.

King and co-counsel Dick Eymann theorize that Crisp stepped in quickly to take a temperature reading. There could have been water on the floor from plumbing work earlier in the day, and he could have slipped. Or he could have become disoriented in the dark if the fan sucked the door closed behind him, King and Eymann said.

Crisp’s attorneys said testimony will show negligence by the company that built the fan, and the architectural and engineering firms that handled renovation of the building. The fan should have had a protective screen and other safety devices, they contended.

Defense attorneys countered that testimony will show Crisp was responsible for his own death.

Crisp ignored proper procedures, according to York/Pace attorney Thomas Dulcich, Armstrong Architects attorney Rob Anderson and MW Consulting Engineers attorney Pat Risken.

“He failed to follow common sense,” much less the dire warnings pasted on the door leading to the fan, Anderson said.

The door, with a latch that could be opened only with a special tool, was the fan guard, Dulcich said. He noted the door was part of a huge “air-handling unit” enclosure that was itself enclosed in a restricted rooftop mechanical room.

A technician with Crisp’s 17 years of experience should have respected procedures that called for “locking out” electricity before entering the room containing the ventilation fan, the defense attorneys said.

The 100 pounds of negative pressure that sucked Crisp through the squirrel-cage fan’s 4-foot-diameter opening also should have warned Crisp, Dulcich said. Crisp had to overcome that suction to open the fan-room door, which opens outward.

King and Eymann invited jurors to decide whether it is reasonable to rely on anything less than a screen to keep people out of such a powerful fan.

They noted in pretrial arguments that a man was severely injured in a similar accident five years ago in Colorado.

Testimony will indicate that officials responsible for the Gauss Engineering Building renovation rejected a suggestion to place protective screens on ventilation fans like the one that killed Crisp.

Defense attorneys contend university and state officials were responsible for that decision, and that it doesn’t indicate the fans were unsafe without guards.