Plexco manual

We list it on our site because we do sell replacement parts for this unit. Please contact us with any questions: Length Feet ' 12 ' 4 ' 1.

Review Score. Apply Filters. Pneumatic Tubing. Pneumatic Tubing Pneumatic Tubing. View our resources. Add item to cart for lowest price. You must agree to this statement in order to purchase this product. Cancel Continue. Add to List. Call SKU : Call or. The second amended complaints allege causes of action in strict liability and negligence against Juno, and negligence counts against Plexco, all Heery defendants and Disney.

Juno and Plexco each filed cross-claims for contribution against all Heery defendants alleging that one or more of them were negligent in authorizing the substitution of air testing for water testing, causing the plaintiffs' injuries.

The question the lawsuit presented to the trial court was who had the responsibility by contract, by their actions or by common-law for the safety of the workers?

Which entity or entities owed a duty to the workers? Which entity or entities violated that duty? More precisely, who was responsible for safety at the time the test was conducted and who authorized the change from water testing to air testing? Expert testimony established that air testing is more dangerous because air can be compressed and water cannot. Compression allows air to store a great deal more energy and creates a potential for a more violent failure than water testing, which is why Plexco's literature and HE's specifications require water testing.

On 28 July , each of the Heery and Disney defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that they owed no duty to the plaintiffs.

On 14 December , the trial court granted HPM's motion. On 26 January , the court granted Disney's motions. The court based each of the summary judgment rulings on the finding that none of the Heery or Disney defendants owed any of the alleged duties to the plaintiffs. On 26 February , the court granted the Heery defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Juno's cross-claim on the basis that, since the court had granted Heery's motions as to the plaintiffs, Heery could not be subject to Juno's cross-claim for contribution.

On 8 March , the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of all the Heery and Disney defendants and, consequently, dismissed Plexco's cross-claims with prejudice. In ruling on the motion, the court considered the contracts involved and several depositions regarding the conduct of HE and HPM. This court must determine whether the summary judgments were improvidently entered.

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to prove conclusively the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, So. The burden of proving the existence of such issues does not shift to the party opposing summary judgment until the movant has successfully met its burden.

Morris, So. The trial court may not determine factual issues nor consider either the weight of the conflicting evidence or the credibility of witnesses in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists in a summary judgment proceeding.

State v. West, So. Frier, So. As to Disney, the trial court's ruling granting summary judgment was proper; there is no genuine issue of material fact. The appellants pled that Disney was liable based upon two general theories: Disney actively participated in the construction of the Typhoon Lagoon project and became responsible for the safety of the employees on the work site, and; Disney was vicariously liable for the decisions of HPM that allowed changes in the testing method and the curvature of the pipe.

In this case, the written contract between Disney and Irey clearly shows that Irey was the independent contractor responsible for the safety of the 2A phase of the project. The contract between Disney and Irey provides:. The appellants pled that Disney was liable because of its negligence.

Under Florida law, an owner is generally not liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor's workers if they are injured on the job. City of Miami v. Perez, So. The written contract between Disney and Irey clearly shows that Irey was responsible for the safety of the workers on the 2A project.

Disney could, however, be liable if it became actively involved or participated in the construction of the Typhoon Lagoon project to the extent of assuming the detailed direction of the project, effectively becoming the master of the independent contractor's workers. Or, if Disney remained a passive nonparticipant, Disney could be liable if it committed one or more specific acts of negligence which created or approved a dangerous condition resulting in death or injury to a worker.

Such actions would remove Disney from its exclusive role as owner and permit Disney to be held liable. Cohen, So. There is no testimony in the record that Disney supervised anyone.

Disney did have staff architects present to make sure there was compliance with the terms of the contract, but none of Disney's staff supervised or attempted to supervise anyone. Just because an owner has the right to inspect work for conformance with the contract does not change the owner from a passive nonparticipant to an active participant in the construction with the right to supervise or control the work, nor does it destroy the independent status of the contractor and render the owner liable for the contractor's negligence in performing the work by creating a dangerous condition.

Coudry v. City of Titusville, So. Since no proof was presented in support of this theory, it must fail. The appellants also argued that Disney was vicariously liable because it actively participated in the construction via its agent, HPM, and HPM allowed changes in the testing method and the curvature of the pipe called for in the original plans.

See Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus. Bernard ex rel. Bernard, So. The appellants provided no proof to support this claim.

HPM contracted with Disney to provide a construction program manager CPM "to provide an on-site management team to provide contract administration as an agent of the owner and to establish and implement coordination procedures between the Owner Disney , Design Consultant, and all prime contractors and suppliers. HPM had no contractual obligation to supervise, control or give advice regarding the construction of Typhoon Lagoon, nor was any proof offered to show that Disney gave HPM such authority outside of the contract.

The construction was exclusively Irey's obligation, with engineering changes to be approved by Disney or HE. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that HPM could be viewed as Disney's agent, HPM's conduct could not be imputed to Disney because any actions taken by HPM in supervising, controlling or advising Irey regarding construction would have been outside HPM's agency relationship with Disney.

Furthermore, appellants' attempt to impute knowledge of one corporate defendant to another corporate defendant is unavailing. The record establishes that HE was responsible for authorizing the change in the curvature of the polyethylene pipes and that Roger Ellis of HE did not object to pneumatic testing in lieu of water testing when this change was presented to him by Irey.

It does not show that HPM approved any changes. See heading IV. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment as to Disney. The trial judge, after reviewing all of the pleadings and the depositions, ruled that the contracts between the Heery defendants, who are engineers and architects, and Disney did not require the Heery defendants to undertake a duty to ensure the safety of the workers on the job site.

Absent a contractual basis to provide for the safety of workers, the Heery defendants can not be held liable for injuries sustained by workers unless the Heery defendants violated a common law duty of care to those who may foreseeably be injured if the professionals negligently performed their services. Conklin, So. Bennett, So. The judge also found that neither the injury nor death was proximately caused by either a defect in the plans or specifications of HI, a breach of a duty to supervise for safety assumed outside the contract by HE, or a failure to warn the owner or contractor of a dangerous condition of which the Heery defendants had "actual knowledge," as opposed to a dangerous condition the Heery defendants should have known of.

In other words, none of the Heery defendants assumed responsibility for safety as part of their supervisory duties discharged on behalf of the owner.

The appellants offer a number of theories to establish that HPM was negligent and to establish that the entry of summary judgment should not have been granted. Juno argues that HPM contractually agreed to be responsible for safety. Therefore, it was HPM's responsibility to see that water was used instead of air for pressure testing, and that established safety procedures such as backfilling were used during the test of the pipe.

The fact that there were disputes between HPM and Disney as to whether HPM was responsible for safety, together with a letter that HPM wrote to remind contractors that they needed a safety program, raises an inference that HPM did have a contractual duty in regard to safety, the appellants argue. Vorndran v. Wright, So. View Replacement Parts. Overview Superior quality, flame retardant, stress crack resistant, exclusively compounded polyethylene tubing product for pneumatic instrument controls.

Marked with a white ink numbering system over the full length of the tubing. Cut the lead end at any number from 1 to 30 for easy identification of individual tubes. Color-coding in up to seven different color stripes is available for instant, easy identification.

Bright color stripes are extruded directly into the outside surface of the tubing and provide permanent color-coding that will not wear or fade. When color-coded, the combination of color stripes and printline numbering provides for up to pneumatic circuit lines without duplicating a color stripe-number combination.

Stress Crack Resistance Resistance to stress cracking is critical. The possibility of tubing failure occurring behind skyscraper walls 10 or 15 years in the future is of great concern. Performance Pipe has developed material compounds and extrusion techniques that ensure tubing with inherently superior stress crack resistance.

Stress cracking tests are conducted on every production lot of tubing. Flame Retardant "Flame Retardant" or "self-extinguishing" means that the tubing material has the ability to retard burning and extinguish the flame once the flame source is removed. Industry tests are used to evaluate the burning characteristics of pneumatic tubing materials.

When pneumatic tubing is listed in accordance with NFPA 90A requirements, it is a "plenum rated" material NOTE: Image does not reflect actual product Please see "Product Information" document below for complete list of product specifications. Manuals 1. Speak with a real person who will go out of the way to help! Call or Text Text Call Have suggestions or feedback about this page?

Let us know below! Submit Cancel. Thank you for your feedback! Something went wrong please try again!