@PUNKEY,
Punk and Ceili hase offered terms that come much closer. Background: “A jury awarded a..man 1.72 million…after he got injured…a crane hit power lines and electrocuted the operator,” Henry, who operates the crane
“…...got electrified after he went underneath….to check….”
One might suppose a crane operator to be better trained but evidently the writer uses “electrified” as a synonym for “electrocuted” probably to avoid the use of this latter word twice. “Shocked” here would certainly register as true but this term would not ordinarily signify the victim’s death
While the first para implies that only one other man, Ward the plaintiff, was involved and was remunerated, we learn later to our surprise that another worker was also shocked in an attempt to rescue Henry, then subsequently remunerated. (We also wonder how anyone else, much less two more workers, could be so foolish) but
Ward …was blown back…”, but Muro the second hero
“..tried to pull him [Henry] out also got electrified….20 percent of his body burned….”. As Ward was only “blown back,” however while Muro was almost killed, we might wonder—here’s where background and detail are left out—why the story leads with and emphasizes only Ward’s plight
This is perhaps only partly explained at the end of the story where Muro had earlier “….reached an undisclosed settlement…." but considering the extent of his wounds we would have expected an earlier disclosure
Background and detail again, how about Henry? After scanning the piece a couple of more times we conclude that since was the driver he must have been covered anyhow and so we don’t care so much about him or his family