. .

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 187202

$________ Product Liability – Defective Design – Lack of safety devices – Plaintiff suffers severe injuries when the mixer activated while being cleaned – Amputation of both of the legs.

Los Angeles County, CA

In this product liability matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to provide any safety mechanisms, which resulted in the defendant’s mixer becoming activated while the plaintiff was cleaning it. As a result, the plaintiff’s legs were cut by the mixer blade, resulting in the amputation of both of the plaintiff’s legs. The defendant disputed liability and maintained that the plaintiff failed to follow safety precautions and caused his own injuries.

The 46-year-old male plaintiff was employed as a concrete mixing plant supervisor on the date of the incident, September 12, ________. On that day the plaintiff was performing his job duties, which included cleaning out the concrete mixer manufactured by the defendant. On the date of the incident, as the plaintiff was cleaning the mixer, the mixing blades activated and cut through the plaintiff’s legs. As a result, the plaintiff underwent the amputation of both of his legs.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant manufacturer alleging that the subject concrete mixer lacked adequate safety mechanisms that would permit the mixer to be stopped and prevent the power source from being energized while it was being cleaned. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the defective design, the machine activated and the mixing blades cut through the plaintiff’s legs.

The defendant denied liability and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s damages. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had a history of being reprimanded for safety violations and that on the date of the incident he failed to "lock out and tag out" the mixer before jumping inside of it to clean it. The defendant contended that as a supervisor the plaintiff should have known that a failing to lock out and tag out the machine could result in serious injuries. Further, the defendant maintained that the plaintiff most likely engaged the mixer himself while he was cleaning it. The defendant argued that the model mixer in which the plaintiff was injured was manufactured in the 1960s and had been modified by the plaintiff’s employer over the years, which prevented any liability to be attributed to the original manufacturer, the defendant.The parties agreed to a settlement of $________ for the plaintiff’s injuries and damages prior to a trial in this matter.

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.