Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P, who worked for Metal Etching, was receiving instruction from a supervisor on how to perform a particular job with a metal shearing machine. Believing that the supervisor had finished setting up the job, P went to the rear of the machine to clear out some cut pieces of metal. After being cut, the pieces of metal had fallen and accumulated in a ramp mounted behind the machine. As was the usual practice in order to gain leverage while removing the metal with his left hand, P placed his right hand on the machine's cutting surface. The supervisor attempted to make a cut and, in doing so, severed P's fingers, which were in the cutting plane. The ramp had been installed by Metal Etching. and it altered a feature of the machine as initially delivered by D. The original machine had a ramp with a conveyor belt that ran across the rear of the machine leading to a stacking bin at the machine's side. Metal Etching installed its own ramp above the conveyor system in order to catch the metal cuttings before they hit the conveyor. It did so allegedly to avoid a totally different hazard that the original ramp would supposedly have created. With the new ramp installed, employees not only had to remove the cut material but found that doing so required bracing themselves with one hand on the cutting surface. P had been using the machine for about seven months. He fully understood how it worked, where the cutting plane was, and how dangerous it was to place one's hand in the plane while the machine was in operation. He was also aware of the warning label on the front of the machine that specifically warned against getting near the cutting mechanism. There was no warning label on the rear of the machine. P contends that D could have anticipated that some customers would remove the conveyor mechanism and that it, therefore, should have designed the machine with a guard that prevented a worker from getting near the blade when approaching the machine from the rear. D responded with expert testimony that such a rearguard would have limited the shapes of metal that could be cut and the conveyor system it provided eliminated any need to approach the cutting plane from the rear. P pointed out that the conveyor system was never identified as a safety device in the machine manuals, that D had never attempted to design a rear guard, and Metal Etching had been able to install such a safety device after the accident. P's expert testified that D could have easily, and cheaply, designed and installed a rear safety device. The judge instructed the jury that 'if you find that P already knew of the danger or dangers associated with the Spartanics WL-2 metal shearing machine, you will find that D had no duty to warn him of the dangers associated with the machine. D got the verdict and P moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court eventually denied the motion. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co