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 42891
Plaintiff contends injury occurred because printing press remanufactured by defendant was defective in that it was not brought into compliance with industry standards at the time of the remanufacture - Degloving injury to right hand and broken third metatarpal.
Suffolk
In this products liability, case the plaintiff, a press operator
for a newspaper, was changing plates on the press. As the
plaintiff was doing so, the plaintiffs co-worker moved the press
while the plaintiffs hand was inside of the press, causing him
severe injury. The plaintiff contended that when the defendant
reconditioned certain units of the press, it should have brought
the press up to current OSHA and ANSI standards, specifically
with respect to adding an extra control station closer to where
the plaintiff was working at the time of the accident. The
plaintiff argued that the defendants failure to do so resulted 7 3 in the plaintiffs injury because if this additional control
panel had been added, the plaintiff would have utilized a safe
button on the control panel prior to inserting his hand into the
press which would have prevented his co-worker from moving the
press while his hand was inside. The defendant contended that it
had no obligation as a remanufacturer to bring the press unit up
to current industry standards when providing the service of
remanufacturing/reconditioning (such terms were used
interchangeably), and the owner of the press did not enter into
an agreement with the defendant to make such upgrades during the
reconditioning service. Secondly, the defendant asserted that the
press was in compliance with the specific ANSI standard that the
plaintiff claimed was violated.
As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained a degloving
injury to the right hand and a broken third metatarpal. The
plaintiff underwent four surgeries, physical therapy, and
occupational therapy. Prior to the plaintiffs third surgery, he
re-broke his hand under circumstances disputed by the parties.
The plaintiff claimed he fell on ice, while the defendant had
witnesses testify that he was involved in an altercation and re-
broke his hand by punching a wall. The plaintiff maintained that
he could not return to work as a pressman due to his injuries and
that he was totally disabled and had ongoing pain and pain
management medication issues.
At trial, the plaintiff called a liability expert who testified
that the machine remanufactured by the defendant was not up to
ANSI standards and should have had an additional control station
with a safe button. The plaintiff presented a vocational expert
who testified that the plaintiff could not return to work due to
his injuries and medications. The plaintiff presented video
depositions from his pain management physician and his hand
surgeon. The plaintiffs pain management physician testified as
to the types of pain management the plaintiff was undergoing and
what he would need in the future. The plaintiffs hand surgeon
testified as to the plaintiffs injury and that the re-injury did
not affect the plaintiffs recovery.
The defendant serviced the existing printing press units at the
plaintiffs place of employment. A newspaper owned these units.
The defendant took apart certain units on the press, cleaned and
adjusted them and replaced worn parts and then reassembled the
presses. The defendant argued that it was under no obligation to
bring machinery up to current industry standards during this
rebuilding process. Further, according to the defendant, the
machine did meet the applicable ANSI standards in any case. And,
lastly, the defendant argued that it was the plaintiffs own
negligent action of several time placing his hand inside a press
that he knew was "live" without utilizing various safety measures
required by the manufacturer.
At trial, the defendant called an expert who was the chairman of
the ANSI subcommittee that promulgated the specific ANSI standard
central to this case. The defendants expert testified that the
specific standard cited by the plaintiff did not call for a
control station where the plaintiff claimed it did and that the
press unit did comply with ANSI standards. The expert also
testified that an additional control station, located where 7 3 plaintiff was arguing it should have been, would not have
prevented the accident regardless because the plaintiff could not
have reached a control station in this location from his
operating position. The defendant also called an orthopedist who
had performed an independent medical examination on the plaintiff
and testified that the plaintiffs impairment was not as severe
as claimed and that the plaintiff was capable of performing motor
functions allowing him to work. The defendants expert also
opined that the plaintiff was abusing pain medications and that
inappropriate pain management was hindering the plaintiffs
recovery. The defendant called a vocational expert who testified
as to what types of jobs the plaintiff was capable of in other
fields. The defendant called a hand surgeon whose testimony
focused on the plaintiffs re-injury and its effect on his
recovery.
The jury found for the defendant on all counts. This case is
currently on appeal.
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.