Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.
Verdict range $500,000 - $1,000,000
ARTICLE ID 139926
$________ FOLLOWING MEDIATION Product liability - Design defect - Finishing machine locking mechanism was defective and permitted machine to run with cover raised - The hand is crushed - Crush injury - Degloving injury to fingers and thumb.
United stateorgs District Court
In this product liability matter, the plaintiff alleged
that the finishing machine manufactured by the defendant was
defectively and dangerously designed. As such, the interlock
mechanism did not fix in position and permitted the machine to be
used while the cover was raised, causing the plaintiff’s hand to
become caught in the rollers where he suffered a crush and
degloving injury. The defendant denied the allegations and
maintained that the plaintiff was not properly trained in the use
of the machine and was negligent in its operation, causing his
own injury.
The male plaintiff, a cabinet maker, was using a finishing
machine manufactured by the defendant. The machine was equipped
with an interlock actuator which the plaintiff alleged failed to
sit in a fixed position. As a result, the machine could be
operated with the cover raised, putting the operator’s hands in
dangerously close proximity to the rollers. The plaintiff was
cleaning the rollers on the finishing machine when his hand was
pulled into the rollers. The plaintiff’s hand became caught and
was crushed. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a complex crush
injury to his left hand, an open proximal phalanx fracture of his
left long finger, an avulsion of the EPL tendon of his thumb,
open dislocation of the IP joint of the thumb, long finger and
ring finger and degloving of the plaintiff’s hand and thumb. As a
result of the injuries he sustained, the plaintiff had to undergo
multiple surgeries and has suffered a permanent partial loss of
the use of his left hand.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant and alleged that
the interlock actuator design was defective, dangerous and
permitted the machine to be run while the cover was open. The
defendant disputed the allegations of liability. The defendant
maintained that the plaintiff was inadequately trained in his use
of the machine and his own negligence, rather than a design
defect, was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
The matter was mediated and the claim was resolved for a total of
$________.
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:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- 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.