union wire rope cut off program in stock

In this full length handbook, learn the basics of wire rope including how to choose and measure wire rope. Additionally, you will understand the fundamental mechanics behind our most popular rope constructions and classifications. Finally, you will learn the proper way to care for and use your wire rope, including end treatments, inspection, and removal criteria.

Twisted hoist lines can bring a construction project to a sudden halt, resulting in downtime. But the good news is that you can minimize block rotation through proper installation, handling and corrective measures. In this reference document, you will better understand torque and gain tips on how to reduce block rotation.

Our galvanized strand products meet or exceed ASTM specifications A475 and ASTM A363. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will learn what the strands are tested for. Additionally, a chart detailing the physical properties of zinc-coated steel wire strand is included.

Our industry has its fair share of terminology and phrases. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will be provided a comprehensive glossary of all Wire Rope words. From “Abrasion” to “Warrington”, your questions are answered here.

How long will your rope last? While there is not a simple answer, there are several factors involved. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will the factors affecting the longevity of your ropes life. Additionally, information regarding the cleaning and lubrication of your ropes is included.

There is a correct methodology behind measuring of wire rope diameter. Learn this methodology in this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook). Also, the definition of design factor is available. And finally, detailed information regarding metric conversion and equivalents is included.

Yes, there is a RIGHT way to unreel, uncoil and store a wire rope. Learn the proper steps in this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook). Additionally, the three stages of kinking are vividly displayed.

Wires are the basic building blocks of a wire rope. And, a rope core will greatly impact the performance of your rope. Learn how the number of wire strands and construction determine a wire rope classification. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will become familiar with the standard rope classifications and special rope constructions.

The types of wire, lay and performing greatly affect wire rope performance and operation. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will learn the basic types of wire used in ropes, the common grades of wire rope and the meaning of “lay”.

In this Product Bulletin, you will learn about the new rope description format that WireCo WorldGroup will follow in all of our product descriptions. This format will adopt symbols and designations that are part of ISO, ASTM, and other industry standards and specifications.

Rotation-resistant ropes can frequently provide the best and most economical service in specific applications, when you choose, handle and use them properly. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will learn the difference between Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 Rotation-Resistant Rope.

Previously known as “aircraft” cable, and now known as “utility cable, these small diameter specialty ropes are used in a variety of applications, including control cables, window and door closures, different kind of remote control systems and boat riggings. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will learn how Union specialty small ropes are engineered and fabricated, and the special lubrication and testing they require. Additionally, a minimum breaking force and weights for 7x7, and 7x19 utility cable is included.

Our industry has its fair share of abbreviations. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will be provided a comprehensive glossary of all Wire Rope words. From “PRF” (preformed) to “XIP®” (Extra improved plow steel), your questions are answered here.

Swaged ropes and “Double-Swaged” ropes provide excellent strength for some specific applications. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will find the definition of swaged and PowerFlex (aka double-swaged) ropes. Minimum breaking force and weights charts for 6x19, 6x36, PowerFlex, 3x19 and 3x36 ropes are included.

Our most popular Tech Report, this Wire Rope Inspection Tech Report explains why periodic inspection of wire ropes are necessary. Learn how to properly inspect wire rope, what tools are necessary for inspection, and how to use inspection forms. Additionally, you will learn how often you should inspect your wire rope, what your ‘critical’ points are, how to inspect your end attachments, how to make an internal rope examination, how to inspect sheaves, and how to evaluate drums. Finally, you will understand how to properly measure rope diameter and rope lay.

In applications where a specific length is critical, the constructional stretch can be minimized by prestretching the rope prior to installation, HOWEVER, learn why WireCo WorldGroup advises against prestretching Tuf-Kote/PFV rope. After reading this product bulletin, you will understand the rationale behind WireCo WorldGroup’s recommendation against prestretching Tuf-Kote/PFV Rope.

Engineering and producing wire rope slings for your application is a highly specialized field - with exacting standards that we gladly live by. In this marketing flier, learn the different Union Wire Rope Sling constructions. Additionally learn more about Union Spelter Sockets (both open and closed). There are capacity and diameter charts associated with each product.

In this Product Bulletin, learn the various definition of "US made wire rope" including references to the Buy American Act and the Buy America Requirement. Additionally, learn how Union wire rope meets these definitions.

Most ropes are shipped with the ends seized as they are prepared for cutting, however, in some cases, the rope requires special end preparations. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will learn the two chosen methods for seizing cut ends of your wire ropes. Illustrations and step-by-step instructions are included.

All wire ropes will wear out eventually and gradually lose work capability throughout their service life. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will learn why periodic inspections are critical. The purposes for inspection, guidelines around timing and choosing the right person to inspect are included. Additionally, illustrations regarding “what to look for” in a wire rope is available.

There is obvious evidence of wire rope wear and abuse, and specific criteria regarding removal of your wire rope. In this reference document (an excerpt from the Wire Rope Users Handbook), you will learn the various types of wear and abuse (illustrations included) and the exact removal criteria. A chart on when to replace your wire rope – based on number of broken wires is included.

In this product bulletin, learn why WireCo WorldGroup refers to XLT4 as a low-torque rope and not a rotation-resistant rope. Also included are the definitions of ASTM A1023 and ASME B30.5.

As the need to continually find ways to save on costs becomes more pressing, developing a wire rope cut-off program will ensure operators receive the maximum service life for drill lines. Researchers on a South African project recently found that the lifecycle of a wire rope can double when it is properly maintained and documented.

Although the inspection of wire rope is important, using only visual inspections for determining when to make a cut of the drill line can result in uneven wear, trouble with spooling and longer cuts. By using a digital cut-off program users can remove the heavily worn rope from use and introduce new rope from the storage reel.

Established more than 30 years ago, Union has overhauled its current CD digital cut-off program and has now developed a new, advanced USB computerised program that can calculate, log and track the service life of drill lines. In addition, the system can now be used in multiple languages and units of measure.

In this high-tech update from Union, operators can replace their paper notebooks and CDs with a specially designed USB flash drive that can be plugged into a computer and is compatible with both Windows and Apple operating systems. With the new ability to use the program in four languages (English, Spanish, Russian and Portuguese), companies can easily share results with co-workers around the world. Also, the ability to take units of measure in ton-miles, tonne-kilometres or megajoules limits the risk of errors in calculations.

Another feature of the new system is the ability to set ton-mile goals and monitor the goal results. The program calculates the ton-miles for each operation and provides recommendations on when to cut and how much rope should be cut.

When used with required visual inspections, Union"s new digital cut-off program can help provide the maximum service life from a drill line. Now exclusively for Union drill line users, the new digital format makes it far easier to send and save information, while protecting the data. Drilling contractors are now being encouraged to move towards new digital cut-off programs to get the most out of their drill lines.

Union Wire Rope, a WireCo WorldGroup Brand, has been the industry leader in the design and manufacturing of wire ropes and assemblies for more than 100 years, delivering exceptional service and unmatched support worldwide.

Union has a rich history dating back to just before the United States entered World War I. Commodity prices were steadily increasing and headlines such as “Oil Prices Bound to Soar” were typical. Industries were experiencing shortages of supplies and rising prices. The lack of wire rope had become so acute that drilling and production of petroleum products were threatened.

Today, Union remains an industry leader in oil and gas, mining, crane and general-purpose ropes with technical support unmatched in the industry. The Union Cut-Off Program, which is designed to calculate, log and track the service life of Union drill lines is recognized by contractors around the world as the best in the industry.

Union wire ropes reflect the people who make it. People of character, full of grit and determination. Tough-minded individuals who never cut corners or take shortcuts. We’ve matched the science of design with the art of skilful manufacturing craftsmanship to build the best wire rope in the world.

No matter where you are in the world, Union delivers hard-working products, exceptional service and unmatched support. At Union, we’re with you in the field, on the rig and in the mine, getting our hands dirty to supply tough ropes that help you get the job done - better. Being part of the global leader, WireCo WorldGroup, our expertise is unmatched. Whether it"s manufacturing, design, troubleshooting or logistics, Union wire rope support is unsurpassed.

The 18 plaintiffs in this case brought suit in the superior court of Cook County to recover for personal injuries and wrongful deaths suffered on March 19, 1957, when a temporary construction hoist, being operated in conjunction with the erection of a multi-story courthouse in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, plunged a distance of six floors with 19 workmen aboard. Seven were killed and the remainder were severely injured. Two of the plaintiffs, (we use the term to include plaintiffs" decedents,) were employees of George D. Auchter Company, the general contractor which owned and operated the hoist, while the balance were employees of Auchter"s subcontractors on the project. The actions, later consolidated, were brought against Union Wire Rope Company, manufacturer of a cable that broke, Archer Iron Works, designer and manufacturer of the hoist and a safety device thereon which failed to halt the fall, and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, the workmen"s compensation and public liability carrier for Auchter, which was charged with the *72 negligent performance of gratuitous safety inspections and safety engineering service.

Following an extended trial, judgments were entered on jury verdicts finding the defendants Union Wire and Archer Iron not guilty, and finding defendant American Mutual guilty and liable for damages assessed in a total amount of $1,569,400. On appeal, both by plaintiffs and American Mutual, the Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the judgments in favor of Union Wire and Archer Iron, but reversed outright the judgments against American Mutual. (Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 39 Ill. App.2d 73.) We have allowed the plaintiffs" petition for leave to appeal to further review the matter. In addition, we have granted leave to several insurance groups to file a brief as amici curiae.

As a matter of initial concern it is unnecessary in our opinion to completely detail the respective pleadings, proof, arguments and authorities advanced in relation to the issues on review between plaintiffs and defendants Archer Iron and Union Wire. Although we do not necessarily adopt all that is said by the Appellate Court, particularly with respect to its concepts of various rules of evidence, and we do not approve of some aspects of Archer"s presentation in this court, we are in basic accord with the court"s judgments as to these two defendants and see no beneficial purpose in repetition or further analysis of those phases of the litigation. Gould v. Gould, 408 Ill. 526; Kamienski v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc. 389 Ill. 462.

The substance of plaintiffs" complaint against American Mutual, (hereafter referred to as defendant) and the theory they have consistently adhered to, is that the insurance company had gratuitously undertaken to make safety inspections of the practices and equipment of Auchter, its insured, and had carelessly and negligently performed the said inspections, as the proximate result of which plaintiffs were injured and killed. Other specifications charged that *73 defendant had carelessly and negligently failed to detect and report: that the hoist"s safety mechanism was inadequate and defective; that the tower was improperly designed and manufactured in that it did not have sufficient strength to permit the safety device to function; that the cable was in a worn condition; that the hoist was being used for the transportation of personnel in violation of a city ordinance, and that a sheave on the hoist was of improper size in violation of a city ordinance. A concluding specification charged that defendant had negligently failed to warn Auchter against the unsafe practice of permitting personnel to ride on the hoist. In answer, defendant denied that it had undertaken, gratuitously or otherwise, to make such safety inspections, or that such safety inspections of practices, machinery or hoists had in fact occurred, and denied that it had been guilty of negligence of any kind, or in the respects specifically charged. Further, defendant denied that it had made periodic or regular surveys or inspections of the premises or equipment, and while admitting that an employee had made intermittent and infrequent surveys and inspections of the premises, it denied that they had pertained to or included the hoist, and alleged that they were for the sole purpose of keeping itself advised of the risk it had insured. As a first affirmative defense defendant alleged that, because it was the general contractor"s compensation carrier, it was not subject to suit as a third party tort feasor under the Florida Workmen"s Compensation Act; as a second affirmative defense it was alleged that if it had in fact performed safety inspections as plaintiffs charged, it became a subcontractor and was thus immune from tort liability to plaintiffs by virtue of the Florida act.

*75 Our Appellate Court, in considering the doctrine as stated in the Restatement, concluded that it was "properly applicable only in situations involving active negligence, or misfeasance," (39 Ill. App.2d at 129,) an earlier portion of its opinion indicating that it equated the terms "active negligence" and "misfeasance" as meaning the "creation of a risk, or danger," and its belief that defendant here could not be liable for a gratuitous undertaking unless it was guilty of negligence which "caused the hoist to fall." (39 Ill. App.2d at 122.) In this we believe the court was plainly wrong. The language that a volunteer is liable for failure to use such competence and skill as he possesses does not admit to a conclusion that the only duty of the volunteer is to refrain from positive acts of negligence. Moreover, in those cases, subsequently discussed, where insurers have incurred liability as the result of gratuitous inspections of machines and equipment, liability rested upon a breach of the duty to make the inspections with due care, not upon acts which "created" dangers or defects, or which caused the occurrence by which injury was received. (See: Van Winkle v. American Steam-Boiler Ins. Co. 52 N.J.L. 240, 19 Alt. 472; Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. (7th cir.), 201 Fed. 617.) As is shown by defendant"s own citation of authority, viz., Viducich v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. 80 N.J. Super. 15, 192 A.2d 596, plaintiffs, to support their actions, had only to show (1) that defendant undertook to make safety inspections and to render safety engineering services under circumstances which created a duty on defendant, owed to plaintiffs, to perform its undertakings with due care, and (2) that the gratuitous undertakings were negligently performed, such negligence resulting proximately in plaintiffs" deaths and injuries. See also: McClure v. Hoopeston Gas and Electric Co. 303 Ill. 89, 96; Devaney v. Otis Elevator Co. 251 Ill. 28, 33.

In Sheridan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 3 Wash. 2d 423, 100 P.2d 1024, the insurer issued an insurance policy on an elevator, the policy reserving the right to inspection. *78 Thereafter, the insurer made periodic inspections, making reports to the owner and also to the city as an ordinance required. An employee of a tenant in the building was injured by a defective elevator door and brought suit against the insurer, who defended that plaintiff had no rights under the policy and that it was not liable by reason of the inspections made. After reviewing numerous cases holding that the voluntary assumption of a duty renders one liable for its negligent performance, the court concluded (100 P.2d at 1031): "Our conclusion is that respondent"s action is maintainable, not by virtue of any obligation imposed by the policy of insurance, but because of the legal responsibility attaching to its voluntary assumption, as the owner"s agent, of the duty of proper inspection and reporting to the city." To the same effect is Bollin v. Elevator Construction & Repair Co. 361 Pa. 7, 63 A.2d 19.

The proof in the present case fully negates any concept that defendant"s gratuitous inspections were solely for its own internal purposes, and likewise refutes the allegations in its answer denying that safety inspections had been made, or that it had made regular and periodic inspections. At the time and immediately prior to the date Auchter took out its compensation and public liability policies on the courthouse project, defendant constantly represented that those who insured with it would receive countless extra safety and monetary benefits through the services of defendant"s "safety experts" or "safety engineers." An advertising symbol referred to as "Mr. Friendly" was adopted, and by a series of advertisements placed in both national and trade publications, such representations as the following were made: (1) "In case after case, month after month, American Mutual"s safety engineering service has helped contractors all over the country reduce accidents and costs;" (2) that insureds "have *80 worked hand in hand with American Mutual Safety Engineers to build safety into every job;" (3) after explaining that one insured had saved money, the method was stated to be: "Close cooperation between Hittig Management and American Mutual Safety Engineers in designing and operating an effective safety program;" (4) "Thanks to thorough investigation and hazard analysis * * * and immediate investigations when accidents have occurred, this nationally known firm has been able to maintain a good accident record and to lower operating costs." These are but samplings of many representations that could be stated, but, in general, the tenor of each of the 29 advertisements admitted in evidence was that the safety engineers took an active part in the safety programs of the insureds and saved lives, limbs and money. A former executive of defendant, testifying directly to the function of the safety engineers, stated that it was to help the insureds to reduce accidents and to determine what were or were not unsafe practices. From all of the evidence it appears that defendant"s safety engineers, and the various financial and safety benefits claimed to inure to insureds as a result of their safety engineering services, were its chief stock in trade. Just as certainly, it appears beyond a shadow of a doubt that the services gratuitously given by the engineers were not solely for defendant"s own purposes.

Following each visit formally reported to his employer, McClain, as we have said, also wrote letters to Auchter describing the visits and making representations of which the following are typical: (1) "I plan to again be in Jacksonville within a few weeks and will visit both of the above jobs again as a continuation of our service to you in the control of accident possibility;" (2) "I plan early visits in November to assist your superintendents;" (3) "Continuing our engineering service to you in making your operations safe * * * I made a survey of your operations and from an over-all standpoint found job practices satisfactory from a safety standpoint;" (4) "Continuing our engineering service to you and a maintenance of your loss control program, I called at the jobs in caption;" (5) "To assist you further in your accident control at the job, I suggested to Mr. Hodge that he ground the frame of the builder"s hoist."

Copies of the safety engineer"s inspection reports and surveys, as well as any recommendations made to the insured, were transmitted to various of defendant"s departments, including sales and engineering. A former employee in the sales department testified that if at any time the recommendations were not complied with, the sales department would be requested to contact the risk to see that there was compliance. "Normal recommendations," he said, would not require any action on the part of the sales department, but those of an "urgent" nature would be followed *83 up by the sales manager whose duty it was to see that there was immediate compliance on the part of the insured. Instructions from the home office were that if urgent recommendations were not complied with, cancellation notices would be issued and the risk normally cancelled. The exact action taken by the engineering department with regard to recommendations does not fully appear, but it does appear that, on one occasion at least, McClain went to Auchter"s president when he met with some recalcitrance on the part of Hodge, the project superintendent, and one of the men with whom McClain directly discussed his inspections and findings. On each succeeding visit, McClain would check to see if his recommendations were carried out.

Turning to the material facts, Auchter purchased the construction hoist from Archer Iron in late 1955, and erected it at the courthouse project in May, 1956, ten months before the occurrence which led to plaintiffs" actions. The hoist bail, with the platform attached, was raised and lowered by a steel cable and moved along vertical guide rails on each side, the guide rails being attached to the tubular metal pipes which made up the hoist tower. Built into the bail was a device known as a "broken rope safety," consisting of two serrated jaws, or "dogs," opposite the two guide rails. The dogs remained retracted so long as the weight of the car hanging from the cable exerted pressure on the top of the bail, but, through the action of cams and springs, would extend out and engage the guide rails as soon as pressure was released on the cable. The pressure and traction exerted by the dogs on the guide rails was thus supposed to arrest the gravitational fall of the platform. As is explained in greater detail in the opinion of the Appellate Court, a new 3/4-inch cable manufactured by Union Wire was installed, and a one-part line was rigged between the hoist and a drum, activated by a motor, upon which the cable was wound. To accomplish this rigging, two new sheaves furnished by Archer Iron were employed. These *89 sheaves had an outer diameter of 19 inches, and an inner diameter of 16 incres at the bed of the groove. Within a short time after the hoist had gone into operation, Auchter, to slow down the speed of the platform, re-rigged the cable and made a two-part line by affixing a third sheave to the top of the bail. This sheave, which was used and had been obtained from Auchter"s construction yard, had an inner diameter of slightly less than 10 inches. It was in plain view, and easily accessible for inspection.

Once in operation the hoist was used to transport building materials and, except for the period during which it was being re-rigged, the uncontroverted proof in the record is that personnel of all categories on the project, laborers, supervisors and company executives, constantly rode on the hoist up to the time it fell. There was evidence that stairways in the building under construction were ill-lit, cluttered with scaffolds, waste and materials, and sometimes closed; and it further appears that the greatest use of the hoist by personnel was at starting and quitting times. On the day of the occurrence, at quitting time, the 18 plaintiffs and another workman got on the platform at fifth floor level. After they had done so, the cable broke and the platform plunged to the ground.

Following the accident the cable, the sheave added by Auchter, and portions of the hoist tower were sent to the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, an impartial testing agency agreed upon by all parties. From tests and inspections made it was the virtually uncontradicted testimony of the experts participating that excessive cable wear due to a faulty sheave and the inadequacy of the broken rope safety device were contributing causes of the tragedy. Examination of the cable revealed that it was practically disintegrated for a distance of 21 feet, and it was ascertained that the break had occurred at a point where the cable passed over all three sheaves. The bed of the groove in the sheave added by Auchter was found to be worn and corrugated in *90 a herringbone pattern, and when measured with a gauge the groove was found to be out of contour due to uneven wear patterns on the groove walls. This condition, according to an expert witness, would subject the cable to abnormal forces and skidding actions which would hasten its wear. Since wire cable bends around sheaves at an angle of 90 degrees, all witnesses agreed that there was a direct relation between cable wear and the size and condition of the sheave, and, in such regard, there was expert testimony that a cable passing over a 10-inch sheave, would wear out 2 1/2 to 5 times faster than one passing over a 16-inch sheave.

Scientific tests of the tower and its broken rope safety device, which we deem it unnecessary to detail, revealed that the forces exerted on the guide rails by the serrated jaws, or dogs, caused the rails to deflect outwards to such a degree that the safety device, with the platform falling from fifth floor level, could halt only a fall of 1300 pounds, which was but 300 pounds in excess of the weight of the hoist platform.

When queried directly as to the relationship between his periodic visits and the hoist, McClain stated: "I did not inspect this equipment as a man employed by Auchter or as *91 a man employed by any sub-contractor. I was interested in this piece of equipment as it related to the job as a whole, to whatever exposure was on the job. By exposure I mean injury or property damage." His activities bear out these admissions. In June, 1956, on his first visit after the hoist went into operation, McClain did many things which extended beyond casual observation. He determined the kind and operation of the safety device on the hoist; sighted to see if the guide rails, essential to the functioning of the safety device, were in good alignment; ascertained from Hodge that a drop test of the safety device had been made; discussed with Hodge the anticipated loading; determined the size and breaking point of the cable being used; calculated that the cable had a safety factor of seven times loaded capacity; determined the rigging of the hoist and how it had been changed; and discussed with Hodge the lubrication and maintenance of the cable. On the same visit, McClain, by his version, "suggested" to Hodge that the tower be grounded against lightning, although Hodge put it this way: "Early on the job McClain told me to get the tower grounded. I did that." Indeed, the proof shows without contradiction that every recommendation made by McClain was complied with.

On other occasions McClain checked to see if the tower had guy wires to keep it from toppling over, and inspected the brake drums for the presence of oil that might cause the brakes to slip. Further, it appears that he gave his attention to the hoist on every visit after it started operating, his specific testimony being: "On February 12 (the last visit before the occurrence) I made my usual visual observation of the tower. I saw the lift platforms going up and down and they seemed reasonably smooth. I didn"t notice anything out of order. * * * It was my custom when I visited the job to look at the cable between the swivel deflector sheave and the engine. I noticed nothing that gave me any particular concern." And while McClain"s trial *92 characterization of his conduct was "visual observation," the reports he made after each visit, before the question of liability arose, represented that he made inspections and surveys of machine hazards, one report form indicating that the insured was operating two builder"s hoists. In short, the tenor and intendment of all the evidence is that defendant"s gratuitous engineering services did extend to the hoist.

There is uncontradicted evidence in the record, including testimony of McClain himself, that in order to inspect a cable adequately it is necessary to clean off the grease at intervals, to run the hand along the cable feeling for spurs, to use a magnifying glass for close inspection and to use a spike to separate the strands in order to locate breaks in the valley of the rope. Similarly, there is evidence that a complete inspection of a sheave would entail the use of a groove guage, and of a hammer and a magnifying glass to test and seek for cracks. McClain did none of these things. Instead, he merely examined the sheave at the top of bail only insofar as he could see it from the ground and, as noted, only looked at the cable "between the deflector sheave and the motor." An experienced passenger elevator inspector for his company, McClain explained his failure to make a detailed inspection of the cable and sheaves by stating that the hoist was not classified and rated as an elevator. Apropos of this explanation, McClain testified he had been initially told by Hodge that there would be no riding on the hoist, denied that he had ever ridden the hoist or had seen men riding it, and stated that had he known of this practice he would have recommended against it. As opposed to this, two workmen on the project testified they had seen McClain riding the hoist, while Avent, the project manager, Hodge, and two workmen testified that men were riding the hoist while McClain was on the premises. Many impartial witnesses testified that men rode the hoist all day long from the time the hoist went into operation, and it likewise appears that it was the custom in Jacksonville for workmen *93 to ride construction hoists. The jury, whose function it was to determine where the truth lies, could with reason conclude from all of the evidence that McClain knew, or should have known, that personnel were riding the hoist, and in fact using it as a passenger elevator.

As previously stated, a jury of reasonable and fair-minded men could reach the conclusion from all of the evidence that the interest and activity of defendant with respect to the hoist were not limited to its post-accident claim of casual observation, but in fact extended, as McClain once testified, to whatever exposure to injury and property damage attended the operation of the hoist on the project. The *94 Auchter company employed no safety engineer or safety inspector of its own, and this was the company"s first experience with a manufactured metal hoist. As opposed to this, McClain was a trained and practicing safety engineer, and as a qualified elevator inspector was fully aware of the relationship between cable wear and proper sheaves and of the only sure and safe way to inspect both. Under all of the circumstances, most particularly the circumstance that McClain knew, or should have known, personnel were riding the hoist, we think the same jury of reasonable and fair-minded men could conclude that the exercise of ordinary care, or of the skill and competence the safety engineer possessed, would have required McClain to adequately and properly inspect the cable and sheave, or at least to insure that such inspections were being made. In regard to the latter, McClain did ascertain whether defendant"s insured was inspecting the hoist, but clearly made no effort to see that safe and adequate inspections were made. While there was some conflict as to whether Auchter was inspecting the cable at all, the employee who testified that he did so had no special training or instruction, conceded that he did not examine the sheaves, and testified that his cable inspections were accomplished by getting on the platform and merely looking at the cable as the operator slowly ran the platform to the top of the tower and down again. This, according to expert testimony, was tantamount to no inspection at all.

Claiming the privilege of supporting its judgment in the Appellate Court upon any basis appearing in the record, (see: Becker v. Billings, 304 Ill. 190; Hazel v. Hoopeston-Danville Motor Bus Co. 310 Ill. 38,) defendant asserts, admittedly for the first time in this court, that it cannot be guilty of negligence because there is no evidence that a reasonably careful inspection of the cable by McClain would have disclosed that it was unsafe. While it is our opinion there is no proper basis in the record to permit this contention *95 to be made, (see: In re Estate of Leichtenberg, 7 Ill. 2d 545, 548-549,) it is equally untenable on its merits. The whole body of the evidence discloses that the small and defective sheave added by Auchter caused excessive cable wear and damage.

We are in accord with plaintiffs that the jury could also reasonably find from the evidence that McClain, under the circumstances of the case, failed to exercise due care with respect to the safety device on the hoist. The most important circumstances are, again, that McClain, unlike the manufacturer of the hoist, was chargeable under the evidence with knowledge that personnel were riding the hoist, and that McClain was trained and experienced in the matter of testing such devices, whereas Auchter"s employees were not. There is evidence that a proper testing of the safety device would have been to make two drop tests with the platform bearing 120% of the manufacturer"s rated load. As opposed to this, Hodge testified he made but one test and that by merely raising the unloaded platform to a height of six to eight feet and letting it fall. McClain knew the importance of the safety device, and, as previously detailed, once the hoist was put into operation took steps to determine the type of safety device, the alignment of the rails and whether functional tests had been made. He did not, however, concern himself with the adequacy of the test then or later, even though he knew, or should have known, that the hoist was in effect being utilized as a passenger elevator. Had an adequate test been made, and had McClain exercised the safety engineering skill the situation demanded, it would have been discovered that the safety factor of the device was only 300 pounds in excess of platform weight.

Turning next to defendant"s affirmative defense that the Florida Workmen"s Compensation Act gives it immunity from suit as a third party tort-feasor, it may be said, to use the words of the court in Fabricius v. Montgomery Elevator Co. (Iowa) 121 N.W.2d 361, that the real question presented is whether there is anything in the Florida act which deprives plaintiffs of their right to proceed at common law against the workmen"s compensation carrier for the general contractor. The Florida act expressly preserves the employee"s common-law action against a third party tort-feasor, without stating who shall or shall not be third party tort-feasors, (F.S.A. sec. 440.39(1),) but it may be conceded here, without the need of detailed analysis of the act or the judicial decisions construing it, that Auchter, as the general contractor, is immune from suit as a third party tort-feasor both as to its own employees and the employees of its subcontractors. (See: Brickley v. Gulf Coast Construction Co. 153 Fla. 216, 14 So. 2d 265.) Thus, stated differently, in terms of defendant"s contention, the issue raised is whether defendant, as the compensation carrier for the general contractor, enjoys the tort immunity of its insured. The precise problem has never been passed upon by the Florida courts in the factual setting of this case; however, we find clear-cut decisions treating upon the question of tort immunity under compellingly analogous situations which stand as guidelines to our decision.

One such case is Fabricius v. Montgomery Elevator Co. (Iowa 1963) 121 N.W.2d 361. That, too, was a suit by an employee against his employer"s compensation carrier as a third party tort-feasor, and involved the compensation *102 act of Iowa which, like that of Florida, neither expressly granted tort immunity to the insurer nor made the act the exclusive remedy against the insurer. Also, like the Florida act, the Iowa statute gave the insurer the right of subrogation and lien against any recovery effected by the employee against the third party tort-feasor. In holding that such subrogation and lien provisions did not operate to give the insurer tort immunity the Iowa court stated: "If the employee"s common-law action is taken away from him, what has done so? Certainly it cannot be the insurance policy. We do not find a statute that imperatively compels that result. Because the insurer may be indemnified and subrogated does not compel that result. It does not deal with the subject matter. Likewise, we are not persuaded by the argument the insurer would be placed in the position of suing itself. It is easier to believe the legislature intended the insurer to have a set-off to the extent of compensation paid." (121 N.W.2d at 364-365.) (Emphasis ours.)

There are still other factors which militate against defendant"s effort to gain tort immunity on this basis, not the least of which is the circumstance that as to 17 of the plaintiffs in this case defendant was not the insurer of their employers. Insofar as those plaintiffs are concerned, defendant is thus not possessed of the rights to subrogation, lien, commencement of suit or the other rights upon which its theory hinges. This circumstance, we believe, serves to emphasize the observation in both the Smith, (163 A.2d at 567,) and Fabricius cases, (121 N.W.2d at 364,) that the suits of the nature here prosecuted are not brought against defendant in its status of insurance carrier, or for the negligent performance of something it was required to do under the compensation act, but in its independent status as a tort-feasor for the negligent performance of a completely gratuitous act. Cf. Schulz v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. (D.C. Wash.) 125 F. Supp. 411, 415.

Section 440.41 (F.S.A. sec. 440.41) reads as follows: "In any case where the employer is not a self insurer, in order that the liability for compensation proposed by this chapter may be most effectively discharged by the employer, and in order that the administration of this chapter in respect of such liability may be facilitated, the Commission shall by regulation provide for the discharge, by the carrier for such employer, of such obligations and duties of the employer in respect of such liability, imposed by this chapter upon the employer, as it considers proper in order to effectuate the provisions of this chapter. For such purposes (1) notice to or knowledge of an employer of the occurrence of the injury shall be notice to or knowledge of the carrier; (2) jurisdiction of the employer by the Commission or any court under this chapter shall be jurisdiction of the carrier, and (3) any requirement by the Commission, or any Court under any compensation order, finding or decision shall be binding upon the carrier in the same manner and to the same extent as upon the employer."

We think it clear that these sections do not reflect a legislative intent to place primary liability for compensation upon the insurer, or to permit the liability of the insurer to be substituted for the liability of the employer. In the first place, the sections simply do not deal with the subject matter, which was dealt with early in the act when the *107 legislature stated in section 440.10: "(1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, * * * shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under sections." (F.S.A., sec. 440.10(1).) Instead, section 440.41 is, on its face, no more than an administrative provision relating to procedure wherein the legislature has authorized the Florida Commission, as it deems proper, to make regulations whereby the insurer may most effectively discharge the liability "imposed by this chapter on the employer." (Emphasis ours.) Liability is not transferred to the insurer, but an administrative facility is provided whereby the carrier may discharge the liability of the employer. Manifestly, if it had been the legislative intent to make the insurer primarily liable for compensation, there would have been no need to supply an administrative means for the insurer to discharge the insured"s liability. The insurer is substituted for the employer, not as to the liability for and duty to secure compensation placed solely upon the employer in section 440.10, but only with respect to notice, jurisdiction and compliance with commission orders. As the court indicated in Fabricius v. Montgomery Elevator Co. (Iowa 1963) 121 N.W.2d 361, 366, under a comparable situation, such limited substitution for procedural purposes cannot be construed as taking away an employee"s common-law action.

As was true in the Mays, Fabricius and Smith cases, the defendant and amici curiae press the argument that it would be contrary to public policy to permit recovery against a compensation carrier as a third party tort-feasor, contending that the result will be a curtailment of safety inspections to the ultimate detriment of working men and their families. This appeal has been soundly rejected in the cited cases and we see little purpose in repeating or expanding upon the reasoning and logic found in them, except to add that the scope and value of the safety inspections, represented thus in an effort to sustain this contention, are highly inconsistent with defendant"s claims under the negligence phase of the case that the activity of its safety engineer was only "casual observation," for its own purposes. Furthermore, whether we look to the law *111 of Florida or Illinois, such a question of public policy is for the legislature not for the courts. General Properties Co. v. Greening, 154 Fla. 814, 18 So. 2d 908; Illinois Western Electric Co. v. Town of Cicero, 282 Ill. 468; People ex rel. Carruthers v. Cooper, 404 Ill. 395.

It is abundantly clear that this court possesses the power and jurisdiction to determine the remaining issues. Section 75 of the Civil Practice Act provides that judgments of the Appellate Court are final, except when a certificate of importance is granted by that court or leave to appeal is granted by this court, and then continues: "In any such case as is hereinbefore made final in the Appellate Court it is competent for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal for its review and determination with the same power and authority in the case, and with like effect, as if it had been carried by appeal to the Supreme Court." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 110, par. 75(2); emphasis ours.) Again in section 92 of the act, entitled "Powers of reviewing courts," it is provided: "(1) In all appeals the reviewing court may, in its discretion, and on such terms as it deems just, * * * (e) Give any judgment and make any order which ought to have been given or made, * * * that the case may require." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 110, par. 92(1)(e); emphasis ours.) Further it has frequently been indicated that where this court acquires jurisdiction for any reason, it has jurisdiction to pass upon all questions, except those requiring a weighing of the evidence, proper to be passed upon and disposed of in the case. (Goodrich v. Sprague, 376 Ill. 80; Bowman v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 11 Ill. 2d 186.) Aside from considerations *113 going to the avoidance of multiplicity of appeals, there are in our opinion unique circumstances here which, as a matter of discretion and justice, impel us to use our powers on review to the utmost and to finally dispose of the case.

Prior to the occurrence here the city of Jacksonville, *114 Florida, passed an ordinance which adopted by reference a building code known as the "National Building Code," and also an ordinance adopting by reference the "American Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumbwaiters and Escalators" compiled by the American Standards Association. These ordinances were introduced in evidence by plaintiffs, and counsel for plaintiffs and the co-defendants Union Wire and Archer Iron were permitted to read portions thereof to the jury, over repeated objections by defendant American Mutual, first, that neither code applied to construction hoists, and second that the ordinances were invalid and did not come into effect because a State statute had pre-empted the field of elevator regulation. The ruling on this evidence is complained of, the defendant raising the same contentions on appeal. The first point, however, was not raised in defendant"s written motion for a new trial so as to preserve it for review and will not be considered. Where a party files a motion in writing for a new trial, specifying therein the grounds or reasons for such motion, he will be restricted, in a court of review, to the grounds or reasons specified in such written motion and will be deemed to have waived all other grounds or reasons for a new trial. (County Board of School Trustees v. Batchelder, 7 Ill. 2d 178, 183-184; Lukich v. Angeli, 31 Ill. App.2d 20, 28.) As the matter comes to us, the ruling of the trial court that the ordinances had application to construction hoists cannot be questioned.

As a general rule any statement, written or not, made by a party or in his behalf which is inconsistent with his present position may be introduced in evidence against him. (Conrad, Modern Trial Evidence, vol. 1, sec. 454; Cleary, Handbook of Illinois Evidence, sec. 13.10; Brown v. Calumet River Railway Co., 125 Ill. 600.) Where the question has arisen, authorities are in accord that advertisements, brochures, newspaper items, catalogs, and the like are admissible and relevant to the subject matter of the suit where they contain statements of a party inconsistent with a claim or a position asserted by such party in the action. (Henkle v. Smith, 21 Ill. 237; 20 Am. Jur. Evidence, 1960 Supp. p. 152; 44 A.L.R.2d 1031; Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co. (7th cir.) 201 F. 617, 629; Fryer v. New York Brokerage Co. 152 Iowa 688, 133 N.W. 110; cf. Mahlstedt v. Ideal Lighting Co. 271 Ill. 154.) In the present case the scope and purposes of the visits of defendant"s safety engineers as alleged in its answer to the complaint were completely inconsistent with *116 its representations in the advertisements. Under the rule stated above, the advertisements became relevant and material and were properly admitted into evidence.

Defendant pleaded as a defense that plaintiffs "without the exercise of due care for their own safety, voluntarily assumed the risk" of riding the hoist alleging they knew it was unsafe for the transportation of passengers because of the "total absence" of handrails, barriers, gates and other safeguards, because of the nature, design and construction of said materials hoist, and because of its location on the exterior of the building and it was not enclosed within a shaft. Error is now claimed because the trial court struck this defense on plaintiffs" motion, made at the close of plaintiffs" evidence, and because it denied defendant"s motion, *117 made at the close of all the evidence, to vacate its order. Some merit attaches, we believe, to plaintiffs" assertion that defendant"s pleading erroneously commingles the doctrines of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. (See: Byers v. Gunn, (Fla. 1955) 81 So. 2d 723, 727; Florida Gravel Co. v. Davis, 126 Fla. 64, 170 So. 660, 663.) However, it is enough to say that the defense was properly stricken when we look to the controlling Florida decisions. In Bartholf v. Baker, (Fla. 1954) 71 So. 2d 480, 483, it was said: "Voluntary exposure is the bed rock upon which the doctrine of assumed risk rests. Appreciation of danger is an essential to the defense of assumption of the risk, * * * as is knowledge of the condition which creates the risk." (See also: City of Williston v. Cribbs, (Fla. 1955) 82 So. 2d 150; Wilson-Toomer Fertilizer Co. v. Lee 90 Fla. 632, 106 So. 462, 465-466; Gallespie v. Thornton, 95 Fla. 5, 117 So. 714, 717.) Here, there was neither pleading nor proof that plaintiffs had knowledge of the unsafe cable and sheaves or of the inadequate safety devices which created the risk. Without knowledge of such defects, and a condition of mental willingness to ride the hoist despite them, plaintiffs cannot be said to have legally assumed the risk. Smith v. Kelly, Inc. (D.C. cir.) 275 F.2d 169; Youngblood v. Beck Co. 93 Ga. App. 451, 91 S.E.2d 796.

For the reasons stated the judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed insofar as it relates to defendants Union Wire Rope Corporation and Archer Iron Works. As to the defendant American Mutual, however, its judgment is reversed and the judgments of the superior court in favor of plaintiffs are affirmed.

I concur in the opinion of the court with respect to its disposition of the actions against Union Wire Rope Corporation and Archer Iron Works, but I dissent from its disposition of the action against American Mutual Liability Insurance Company.

I concur in the minority opinion of Mr. Justice Schaefer. Under the stringent rule adopted by the majority no insurer will hereafter dare offer to perform, or perform, limited inspection services for fear of incurring liability. Undoubtedly such services, though limited, have contributed to the safety of workers and prevented economic loss. Sound policy would seem to dictate that the kind of service rendered by this insurer should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

Fiber rope and wire rope are widely used across the groundwater industry. Fiber rope is more commonly used in manual hoisting, such as raising up or lowering down tools. Wire rope is commonly used for mechanical hoisting operations.

The improper use of fiber rope or wire rope can result in serious incidents involving property damage, injuries, and death. Using the ropes as intended within their safe working load and maintaining them in good condition are critical in preventing rope failures.

Both types of rope include a combination of characteristics that give them certain performance traits depending on design, materials, and composition.

Wire rope is made of steel wires laid together to form a strand. These strands are laid together to form a rope, usually around a central core of either fiber or wire.

The number of strands, number of wires per strand, type of material, and nature of the core depend on the intended purpose of the wire rope. Wire rope that has many smaller wires and strands is more flexible than rope with larger-diameter wires and fewer strands. Wire rope used with sheaves and drums should have many strands to be flexible enough to bend around the sheaves and drums.

Wire ropes are classified by grouping the strands according to the number of wires per strand. The number of wires and the pattern defines the rope’s characteristics.

For example, a 6 × 7 rope indicates the rope is comprised of six strands and each individual strand is comprised of seven wires. This particular rope has large wires and is not very flexible but has good abrasion-resistant qualities. Whereas, a 6 × 19 rope has 19 wires per strand and thus is more flexible.

The more wires in a strand, the more flexible the wire rope. Likewise, the more strands in the rope, the more flexible the rope. However, the more strands in a rope and more wires in a strand, the less abrasion resistant.

Other important requirements to consider when selecting a wire rope are the breaking strength and “safe working load.” These values can be found with the use of a chart.

Most hoisting jobs use a safe working load based on a 5:1 safety factor of the wire rope’s breaking strength. However, this safety factor should be even higher if there is a possibility of injury or death from the rope breaking. For example, elevators are based on a 20:1 safety factor. Critical lifts with a danger to personnel should be calculated on a 10:1 safety factor.

Wire rope inspections are important checks on any type of rigging equipment. Wear, metal fatigue, abrasion, corrosion, kinks, and improper reeving are more important in dictating the life of a wire rope—more so than its breaking strength when new. Therefore, wire rope should be regularly inspected in accordance with OSHA and industry standards.

The frequency of inspections depends on the service conditions. Slings should be inspected each day before being used. Wire rope in continuous service or severe conditions should be inspected at least weekly and also observed during normal operation. For most other applications, wire rope should be inspected at least monthly.

Broken wires: Removing a wire rope from service due to broken wires depends on how the particular rope is being used. Finding one broken wire (or several widely spread) is usually not a problem. Regular breaks are a cause for concern and require a closer inspection. General guidelines for rope replacement due to broken wires are as follows:

Running wire ropes: Six randomly distributed broken wires in one rope lay or three broken wires in one strand in one rope lay, where a rope lay is the length along the rope in which one strand makes a complete revolution around the rope.

Pendants or standing wire ropes: More than two broken wires in one rope lay located in the rope beyond end connections or more than one broken wire in a rope lay located at an end connection. Slings: Ten randomly distributed broken wires in one rope lay or five broken wires in one strand in one rope lay.

Rotation-resistant ropes: Two randomly distributed broken wires in six rope diameters or four randomly distributed broken wires in 30 rope diameters. Valley breaks:Wire ropes with any wire breaks in between two adjoining strands should be removed from service.

Abrasion:Wire rope winding over drums or through sheaves will wear. The rope should be replaced if the outer wire exceeds one-third of the original diameter.

Crushed strands: This condition is a result of too many layers of rope wrapped around a drum. There should be no more than two layers of wire rope on the drum, especially if the rope is a type with many small wires (such as 6 × 37). Crushing also occurs by cross winding, which is a result of poor winding procedures when the rope is wound in a pile in the middle of a drum.

Corrosion: This problem is difficult to evaluate and is also much more serious than normal wear. Corrosion will often start inside the rope before it shows on the outside. A lack of lubrication is usually the cause. Wire pitting or severe rusting should be cause for immediate replacement.

Kinks: Kinks are permanent distortions. After a wire rope is kinked, it is impossible to straighten the rope enough to return it to its original strength. If a rope cannot be unkinked by hand, it should be removed from service.

Electric arc:Wire rope that has been inadvertently (or purposely) used as a ground in welding or has been in contact with a live power line will have fused or annealed wires, and must be removed from service.

Metal fatigue: This is usually caused by bending stress from repeated passes over sheaves, or from vibration such as crane pendants. Fatigue fractures can be external or internal. A larger sheave or drum size, or using a more flexible rope, may increase the rope life.

Diameter reduction: Any noticeable reduction in diameter is a serious deterioration problem. A wire rope is measured across its diameter at its widest point. Diameter reduction could be caused by one fault or a combination of faults. Wire ropes should be replaced when the reduction in diameter is more than 5% from the nominal diameter.

Wire rope stretch: Any new wire rope will stretch when the initial load is applied. After the initial stretch and a slight stretching over time during normal wear, the rope will begin to stretch at a quicker rate, which means it is approaching time for replacement.

Bird caging: This is a torsional imbalance, which is a result of mistreatment such as pulling rope through tight sheaves, being wound on too small a drum, or sudden stops.

A wire rope is lubricated during the manufacturing process. This provides the rope with protection for a reasonable time if stored under proper conditions. When the wire rope is in service, the initial lubrication will not be enough to last the lifetime of the rope. Therefore, it is usually necessary to apply a lubricant to a wire rope under working conditions. A light mineral oil can be used for lubrication. Never use old crankcase oil.

Fiber ropes are preferred for some rigging applications because they are more pliant. However, they should be used only on light loads and must not be used on objects that have sharp edges capable of cutting the rope. Fiber ropes should also not be used where they will be exposed to high temperatures, severe abrasion, or acids.

The choice of rope depends on its application. Manila is a natural fiber and has relatively high elasticity, strength, and resistance to wear and deterioration. Manila rope is generally the most common natural fiber rope used because of its quality and relative strength.

The principal synthetic fiber used for rope is nylon, which has a tensile strength nearly three times that of manila. The advantages of nylon rope are it is waterproof and has the ability to stretch, absorb shocks, and resume its normal length. Nylon also has better resistance against abrasion, rot, decay, and fungus growth as compared to natural fibers.

Avoid dragging rope through sand or dirt or pulling over sharp edges. Sand or grit between the fibers of the rope cuts the fibers and reduces its strength.

The outside appearance of fiber rope is not a good indication of its internal condition. The rope softens with use. Dampness, heavy strain, fraying and breaking of strands, and chafing on rough edges all weaken the rope considerably.

Overloading a rope may cause it to break. For this reason, fiber ropes should be inspected at regular intervals to determine their condition. Untwist the strands slightly to open the rope so the inside can be examined.

Mildewed rope has a musty odor and the inner fibers of the strands have a dark, stained appearance. Broken strands or broken yarns ordinarily are easy to identify. Dirt and sawdustlike material inside the rope, caused by chafing, indicate damage. In rope having a central core, the core should not break away in small pieces upon examination. If this happens, it indicates the rope has been overstrained.

To prevent rope failures and minimize deterioration and damage: select the right rope for the job, inspect regularly, use as intended, and properly store and maintain.

6x7 construction general purpose wire rope is available with either FC (fibre core) or WSC (wire strand core). When supplied with a WSC the rope is more commonly referred to as 7x7. The rope is very popular in smaller diameters from 0.5mm to 2mm where the cable remains very flexible. 6x7 ropes become quite rigid in the larger diameters and are often considered stiff in diameters 6mm and above. In these diameters they tend to be used for applications where the rope is omit/not working. A typical example being a mast stay. 7x7 construction is readily available in both galvanised and marine grade stainless steel.