- PRODUCTS LIABILITY - FAILURE TO GUARD BROOM-STITCHING MACHINE - CRUSH INJURIES TO HAND - ALLEGED INADEQUATE WARNINGS - LIABILITY ONLY.

Camden County

The plaintiff operator of a machine that placed stitches near the base of the bristles on brooms contended that the machine was defectively designed because of an absence of a guard near the needles which applied the stitches. The plaintiff contended that as a result, she inadvertently contacted the point of operation.

The plaintiff also contended that warnings to avoid placing hands in the area were inadequate and that pictorial warnings should have been provided to the plaintiff who maintained she had difficulties with english. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff could read english better than claimed and that the warnings were adequate. The defendant’s expert engineer contended that the crush injuries occurred when the plaintiff contacted the closing vice that holds the broom and could not have occurred as a result of contact with the needles, pointing to the absence of puncture wounds. The defendant’s expert contended that the vice itself can not guarded because of the need to insert the broom.

The plaintiff also contended that the defendant should have incorporated a design in which the machine would operate by remote hand buttons, rather than foot pedals, ensuring that the hands would remain free from the point of operation. The defendant countered that the machine as designed was sufficiently safe to enable blind and other disabled individuals to use it and contended that the position of the plaintiff, who did not suffer from a prior disability, should be rejected. Amaro vs. Dalmascho.

Docket no. L-________-88; Judge Anthony J. Parrillo, 7-30-91.

Attorney for plaintiff: Sal B. Daidone; Attorney for defendant: David C. Weinberg of Goldfein & Joseph of Princeton and Phila.

Plaintiff’s expert engineer: Ervin Leshner from Cherry Hill.

Defendant’s expert engineer: Graham Thompson from Wayne, Pa.