An Investigation of a Forward Fall over a Balcony Railing

Description
The plaintiff, seeking relief from the heat, was sleeping on a mattress placed on a deck overlooking his back garden. Awakening during the night he arose to go down into the garden via an access stairway of eight steps. In rising, his feet became entangled in bedding, causing a stumble towards the railing. Contact was made and a fall into the garden resulted. Perform Enhance, acting for the defense, and aware that the railing had been built lower than the Building Code of Australia stipulated, conducted experiments to confirm that a man of the plaintiffs stature would not have been restrained even at railing heights 10cms above the required standard.

Procedure
Investigation was undertaken at the following levels.

1. On-site inspection entailing detailed measurement of the deck and railing.
2. Anthrpometric measurement of the plaintiff, to determine precise center of mass and other relevant anatomical data.
3. Reconstruction of a deck with integrated force plate and dedicated height adjustable railing.
4. Laboratory simulation and filming of the fall sequence on the dedicated structure, using test subjects of similar weight and stature to the plaintiff. The integrated force plate enabled precise measurement of forces and friction co-efficients in three planes of motion at the instant the fall commenced.
5. Film digitizing provided precise data on the successive recruitment of segments. The data was used to explain why vertebral column architecture and the reflex contraction of musculature served to precipitate a fall over railings up to 110cm – 10cm above that recommended by the Australian Building Code.
6. Bioanimation to demonstrate the movement patterns evident in laboratory testing. Anatomical dissolve was used to confirm the recruitment of underlying musculo-skeletal elements. Biomechanical detail was superimposed.

Conclusion
Perform Enhance demonstrated that only a moderate lean is required to elicit a strong rotation and relied on the disparity between the height of the railing and the location of an individuals centre of mass. It was hypothesized by others that the stumble resulted in a backwards fall over the railing to the ground below. Perform Enhance, basing its argument on the architecture, and permissible movement of the joints involved, was able to demonstrate that a side or front impact could generate only a forward rotation over the railing, and not a backward rotation. Given the stature of the plaintiff, even a railing height of 110cm would not have restrained him. Impact below L3 saw all musculature normally responsible for the maintenance or restoration of the erect standing posture, functionally reversed in their actions. Hence they contributed to the rapid transition of the plaintiff’s centre of mass to the fall side of the railing, rather than resulting in its restoration to the safe side.