. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 16743

- PRODUCTS LIABILITY - ALLEGED DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF SHEARING MACHINE MANUFACTURED IN ________'S - FAILURE TO INSTALL BRAKING MECHANISM TO REDUCE CYCLING TIME AFTER SHUT-OFF FROM 90 SECONDS TO 10 SECONDS - TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION OF FINGER.

Hudson County

This was a products liability action brought by the plaintiff owner/operator of a scrap metal business who, at the time of the accident, was operating his neighbor’s shearing machine manufactured by the defendant in the ________’s. The plaintiff contended that the machine was defectively designed in that it failed to incorporate a braking mechanism which would serve to reduce the cycling of the blade to 10 seconds after the power was shut-off. The machine in question was used to shear large pieces of scrapyard metal and operates on a momentum principle. The machine is set in motion by an electrical engine that commences the spinning of the flywheels which, in turn, raises and lowers the top cutting blade. The bottom cutting blade remains fixed.

The top blade was geared down to move slower than the flywheel.

When the power is cut off, the flywheel continues to turn for a period of time until the momentum dissipates. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff had been working on the machine for two hours. He then shut the machine off, and commenced picking up pieces of metal around the cutting area while the blade was still moving. The plaintiff contacted the blade with his work glove, which caught one his right ring finger, traumatically amputating it. The plaintiff’s expert mechanical engineer maintained that the machine was defectively designed in that it failed to incorporate a braking mechanism which would lower the cycling time after shut-off from 90 seconds to 10 seconds. The defendant’s expert countered that the machine’s utility would have been adversely affected by the design change advanced by the plaintiff’s expert as necessary. The defense expert focused upon the fact that the machine was used in a junkyard rather than a factory setting which calls for different safety considerations and that more would be involved in terms of costs and maintenance were the design changes advanced by the plaintiff’s expert implemented. The evidence established that the plaintiff was familiar with the machine and had used it approximately 25 times over the two year period preceding the accident. The defendant alleged that the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s own inadvertent act in placing his hand near the moving blade.

Ostroman vs. Doelger Kristen Co., et al. Docket no. W-________-87; Judge Joseph T. Ryan, 3-27-89. Attorney for plaintiff: Gregory Winter of Felzenberg, Winter & Winkler; Attorney for defendant: David K. Chazen of Chazen & Chazen. Plaintiff’s expert mechanical engineer: Robert Ehrlich from Teaneck.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.