. .

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 191711

$________ CONFIDENTIAL – PRODUCT LIABILITY – MANUFACTURING DEFECT – UNFIT FOR INTENDED USE – NEGLIGENT DELIVERY PROCEDURES – FAILURE TO INSTITUTE PROPER SAFETY PROCEDURES – PLAINTIFF DELIVERY MAN SUFFERS CHEMICAL BURNS WHEN HOSE BEING USED TO DELIVER NITRIC ACID FAILS – CHEMICAL BURNS TO FACE, EYES, TORSO AND ARMS.

Withheld County, MA

In this negligence action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufacturer and defendant distributor, as well as the defendant facility, were negligent due to improper delivery procedures and a defective hose that resulted in the plaintiff suffering chemical burns when the hose malfunctioned and he was sprayed with nitric acid. The defendants denied negligence and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

On the date of the incident, the plaintiff was pumping nitric acid from his delivery truck into the defendant company’s container. The acid was being pumped at high pressure. As the acid was being pumped, the hose suddenly ruptured. Acid sprayed all over the plaintiff’s face, eyes, arms and torso. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff sustained acid burns over these areas of his body.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant manufacturer and distributor of the hose alleging that the hose was unfit for its intended purpose and failed during the delivery causing the plaintiff to sustain the injuries alleged. The plaintiff also brought suit against the company where he was delivering the acid alleging that the company was negligent in failing to have acceptable procedures in place for the delivery of the nitric acid. In addition, he plaintiff filed suit against a sister corporation of his employer alleging that safety procedures were not properly implemented. The plaintiff’s wife brought a claim for loss of consortium.

The defendants denied the allegations and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The defendants asserted that the hose being used was very visibly worn and it was apparent just from looking at it that it had outlived its useful life. The defendants also raised contentions regarding the plaintiff’s safety attire maintaining that he was not properly outfitted and that was the cause of the injuries sustained.The parties agreed to a day-long mediation at which the plaintiff’s claim was settled in a confidential fashion for the sum of $________. The customer and the sister corporation filed for summary judgment which was denied by the court.

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.