Ladder was almost a stairway to heaven

Manufacturer says consumer was to blame for collapse of its product

I hate ladders. It's not just the hard work that usually follows a trip up one. Nor the fear of a black cat below one. No, with two left feet and a fear of heights, I simply don't trust myself to be safe on one.

Unlike the millions of painters, DIY enthusiasts and domestic workers who climb up and down these handy contraptions daily to get the job done.

But not all ladders are created equal, it seems. And Gordon's Bay reader Johann Jooste discovered this the painful way.

In July 2010, the 57-year-old retired businessman fractured his skull, broke both arms, a leg, and cracked his ribs after his aluminium multiform ladder collapsed beneath him.

He spent 11 days in hospital and five weeks recovering at home. Doctors say he may need further corrective surgery.

The accident hurt Jooste's newly launched fishing charter business, and cost more than R600000 in medical expenses.

Jooste has tried to get the company which made the ladder, Castor & Ladder, to take responsibility for what happened, but in vain - even after a safety test on the same model of ladder set alarm bells ringing.

Jooste had been fixing the roof of his Struisbaai holiday home when disaster struck.

"I climbed up the ladder ... when I reached an area two steps below the red 'do-not-exceed' point, I realised I would not be able to safely access the roof, and began my descent," said Jooste.

"I had descended one or two rungs when the linking/locking mechanism holding the fly section in place suffered a sudden catastrophic mechanical failure ... dropping me to the pavement below," he said.

Castor & Ladder did an initial investigation in August last year, and in its final report a month later, blamed Jooste.

"... the reason for Mr Jooste's injuries was not the fault of the ladder, due to faulty material or workmanship, but due to human error and misuse of the ladder," the report concluded.

But Jooste, who had used the Forlezer CMF 311 ladder without incident several times before, refused to accept this.

And he believed that unless the real cause of the failure was identified, the ladder could place other users at risk.

So he forked out nearly R12000 to have the same model ladder tested by the SA Bureau of Standards (SABS).

The SABS' voluntary standards define quality and establish safety criteria, providing the basis for consumer protection, health and safety.

Guess what? The ladder failed.

According to the November 2010 SABS test report, a weight of 225kg was suspended on the middle of the first rung above the maximum standing height (red rung). No adverse reaction was noted.

"When the test was repeated on the same component but as close as practicable to one of the stiles, the ladder collapsed.

"It should be noted that the mass load was not yet fully suspended at the moment of collapse," the report stated.

Did Castor & Ladder apologise to Jooste? No. Did it suggest sending more ladders for testing, as a precautionary measure? No. Did it announce a voluntary recall and warn consumers of a potential defect? No.

Instead, it stood by its original position, telling Jooste the SABS report appeared "self explanatory" and of "little relevance" to his experience.

When I approached Castor & Ladder, it said its post-accident report clearly demonstrated that "misuse of the ladder caused that accident".

It described the SABS findings as "irrelevant", saying it "would be happy to contest the report in any legal forum".

"We have seen the SABS report but have been denied details of the report procedure," said Roy Fouché, GM of Castor & Ladder.

"We have repeatedly tried to get details from the SABS ... they have gone so far as to refer this matter to their legal team rather than give us information. This would seem to imply some form of error in their test procedure."

He said it was clear that the rung tested was above the red safety step.

"We have numerous notices warning against use of the ladder above this warning marker. That alone renders the test irrelevant."

So how does the SABS respond to this?

Very simply. The SABS 1304:1980 test standard it used is the "valid specification for light ladders".

Without going into Castor & Ladder's claims it had been denied details of the testing methodology, the SABS' manager of building construction and packaging, Erich Seeger, said: "The specification is clear that we can apply the load at any place ... we decided to apply it one step above the so-called last safe rung.

"This way I will know if it is safe ... there is no use testing the ladder only within its so-called declared safety limits."

He said it was also standard engineering practice, as well as prescribed by the standard, to test using double the maximum allowable weight for the ladder. The allowable weight for this model is 115kg. Jooste weighs 95kg.

"Our report is an accurate reflection on the performance of the ladder," said Seeger. "The ladder did not comply."

It doesn't get more relevant than that.

• Further to last week's column on anti-bacterial products, Woolworths has apologised for an error in information it provided. Turns out that although it had considered launching a new mouthwash containing the triclosan anti-germ ingredient, it is not doing so. Good news for cautious consumers.

Sunday Smile

At Checkers, Rock Cottage, Weltevredenpark, Johannesburg, for honouring the price on the shelf, even though it was obviously incorrect. After some "token resistance", the store eventually gave reader John West imported gorgonzola cheese for R3.99/100g.

Sunday Snarl

At Fruit & Veg City Food Lover's Market at Stoneridge Shopping centre in Edenvale, Johannesburg, for displaying and selling raw marinaded meat on open counters on the shop floor - and allowing customers to help themselves. (See reader's picture) Surely this breaks every health and safety rule in the book?