|
|
$600,000 result- cited in The New York Jury Verdict
Reporter
IX/31-19 Product Liability - Injection Molding Machine
- Lack Of Interlock - Crush Injuries To Non-Dominant Hand
SETTLEMENT: Douglas Turner v. Arburg Maschinefabrik Heil &
Sohne, G. M.B.H. and Co. 88-3364 Date of Settlement 1/22/92
Eastern District
Pltf. Atty: Alan M. Greenberg of Barton & Zasky, Manhattan
This action settled during the liability portion of the trial
for $ 600,000.
On 6/6/86 at 4:15 PM, Pltf., a 41-year-old machine operator, was
using and injection molding machine, an Arburg All Rounder 150,
manufactured in 1969 by Deft. Pltf. testified that while the
machine was in the manual setting, he placed his hand between
the molds to remove a piece of plastic that had become stuck
inside. The machine is not supposed to cycle while in the manual
setting until two buttons are pressed. Pltf. contended that
although he did not press these buttons, the machine suddenly
cycled, crushing his hand.
Pltf. contended that the machine should have had a hydraulic
interlock, which would have prevented it from cycling. Deft.
contended that the safety devices on the machine, both a
mechanical and an electrical interlock, were adequate. Pltf.
argued that the mechanical interlock could be detached or
adjusted, allowing the operator to bypass it during set-up or
when making adjustments, such as removing objects from the
molds. Pltf. also contended that the machine should have had an
emergency stop button or a "kill switch" which would have
immediately cut off power to the machine and allowed him to free
his hand. Pltf. claimed that a device of this kind was available
on other machines and was standard in the industry in 1969, the
year of the Arburg's manufacture.
Injuries: severe crush injuries to the left (non-dominant) hand
requiring two surgeries, including a skin graft. Pltf. was
hospitalized for 7 weeks. The State Workers' Compensation Board
found that he had a 65% loss of use of the hand. Pltf. returned
to work 2 years after the accident at a security company. He
would have claimed that he was no longer able to work as a
machine operator. Deft. would have contended that further
surgery could bring greater use of the hand.
Note: Pltf.'s employer was originally a Third-party Deft. in
this case, but came to a settlement agreement with the Deft.
manufacturer on the eve of trial. Demonstrative evidence: photos
of the machine; a sample machine; computer-generated video
showing the machine's safety devices. Pltf. Expert: Paul
Youngdahl, Ph.D., mechanical engineer, Palo Alto, California.
Deft. Expert: William Eaton, mechanical engineer, Edison, New
Jersey.
|
