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 184482
- PRODUCT LIABILITY - DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF CONCRETE MIXER - CLAIMED FAILURE TO PLACE GUARD OVER OPENING OF MIXING BOWL - PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY PULLED INTO BLADES OF MIXER BY HOSE - WRONGFUL DEATH AT AGE 32.
Palm Beach County, FL
@INTRO = The 32-year-old decedent was allegedly cleaning out a
truck-mounted concrete mixer, manufactured by the defendant, when
he was found dead with his head and upper torso trapped inside
the rear of the mixer by the mixing blades. The plaintiff alleged
that the concrete mixer was defectively designed by the defendant
in that it lacked a cover for the opening of the mixer, which
would have allegedly prevented the decedents death. The defense
denied that the concrete mixer was defective and disputed the
plaintiffs version of how the decedents death occurred.
The decedent was a concrete mixer operator with eight years of
experience and training at the time of his death. The plaintiff
alleged that the decedent was attempting to clean the inside of a
truck-mounted concrete mixer with a water hose attached to the
vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that the hose became caught in the
blades of the mixer and pulled the decedent inside the mixing
area where he was killed by the sharp, turning blades. The
decedent was discovered dead by a co-worker with his head inside
the mixing bowl of the concrete mixer and massive crush injuries
to his head. The co-worker then turned off the mixer. The
decedent was survived by his dependent mother and a daughter, age
16 at the time of his death.
The plaintiffs experts opined that the decedent had wrapped
himself in the hose prior to dropping it and that the decedent
was entangled in the hose which pulled him into the blades. The
plaintiff showed still photos of reenactments demonstrating the
plaintiff experts theory of how the fatality occurred. The
plaintiffs expert testified that the opening to the mixing area
of the concrete mixer should have included a safety guard, which
would have completely covered the opening and prevented the
decedent from being pulled into the sharp blades.
The plaintiff offered several alternative designs through two
different experts. The alternative designs included two metal
grates which covered the discharge area ("the hole") for the
concrete mixer. Both metal grates were fabricated and brought
into the courtroom by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also offered
alternative designs that reconfigured the platform provided by
the defendant manufacturer at the rear of the concrete mixer and
designs that reconfigured the positioning of the concrete mixer
itself so that the discharge area was at the front of the truck
that the mixer was mounted upon.
The defendant argued that the accident could not have occurred as
alleged by the plaintiff because, if the hose had become caught
in the blades of the mixer, the hose would have broken. The
defendant claimed that the revolving blades would not have pulled
the decedent inside the mixing bowl, even assuming the hose was
indestructible; because such a scenario defied the laws of
physics. The defense offered a computer simulation designed to
show that the plaintiffs theory of the accident was impossible.
The defendant argued that it was more likely than not that the
decedent had voluntarily positioned himself in danger by standing
on the chute of the mixer which was in contradiction to his
training, experience, common sense and multiple warnings provided
by the defendant and the decedents employer. The defense
contended that the concrete mixer was safe for its intended
purpose, there were numerous warnings on the mixer and in the
operator manual and that the decedent was well aware of the
dangers associated with entering the mixing area with the blades
running. The defense contended that the drum opening in the mixer
is guarded by the "washout guard." The washout guard is located
where the platform is provided by the manufacturer to conduct a
wash down procedure. The washout guard is positioned between
where a concrete mixer operator should stand and the opening to
the drum.
Further, the defense argued that the plaintiffs alternative
designs covering the drum opening destroyed the utility of the
mixer. The discharge area for the concrete also functions as an
access point and observation point for various daily procedures,
according to the defense. The defense maintained that the
concrete mixer can be safely operated with the drum opening
uncovered.
The jury found no negligence on the part of the defendant in
designing a defective concrete mixer which was a legal cause of
the decedents death.
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.