. .

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 192245

$________ – PRODUCT LIABILITY – DEFECTIVE DESIGN – PLAINTIFF’S HAND PULLED INTO PAINT APPLICATOR MACHINE – FAILURE TO SUPPLY SAFETY GUARDS – DEGLOVING AND AVULSION INJURIES OF THE RIGHT HAND – SURGICAL AMPUTATION OF FINGERS – RIGHT ARM TENDON INJURIES – HERNIATED DISC – EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

Lancaster County, PA

In this products liability action, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant manufacturer and machine installer failed to equip a paint coater machine with safety guards that would prevent a user from getting their hands caught in the machine. While in the course of his employment the plaintiff was using the defendant’s machine when his hand was pulled into the machine causing serious injury. The defendants denied all allegations of negligence and maintained that the plaintiff failed to properly use the machine.

On December 1, ________, the male plaintiff was working as paint line coater prep operator. Part of the plaintiff’s job was to clean excess pain from the applicator and pick-up rolls that were part of the prime coater machine. Shortly after he started the applicator and pick up rolls, his hand was pulled into the machine’s in-running nip point. The in-running nip point was composed of two parallel rollers rotating inward. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant, Hunter, manufactured and sold the defective machine and that the defendant, Comstock, negligently installed and assembled the machine.

The plaintiff made products liability claims against both defendants. Specifically, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendant Hunter was negligent in failing to design, manufacture and sell the paint coater machine, failing to equip the prime coater machine with safety guards, failing to supply the machine with safety guards that would prevent users from having their hands, fingers or arms pulled into the machine. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant, Comstock, was negligent in failing to install, assemble and erect the paint coater machine with care and failing to safeguard the machine specifically around the nip points.

As a result of the incident, the plaintiff suffered surgical amputation of his right index finger, long and small finger, degloving and avulsion injuries to his right hand, right labrum tear, right bicep tear, tear to flexor tendon and radial carpal ligament, herniated disc at L5-S1, scarring, disfigurement and emotional distress. The defendant, Hunter, denied that it sold or manufactured the machine, and argued that the plaintiff’s action was barred because he was a longtime familiar user of the machine. The defendant, Comstock, denied all allegations of negligence and asserted that the incident was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff.The parties agreed to settle the case, with Hunter paying $________ and Comstock, paying $________.

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.