Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Laidlow (P) suffered a serious injury when his hand was caught in a rolling mill being operated without a safety nip guard. P was performing his job as a 'set up man,' which required him to work with a rolling mill that changed the dimension of heated metal bars when they were inserted into the mill. P manually inserted the bars into a 'channel' that guided them into the mill and often had to apply pressure to the bars with his hand in order to feed them into the rollers. P's glove became caught by the unguarded nip point as he was pushing a bar of silver into the channel. His gloved hand was pulled toward the mill's rollers. On a prior occasion, P's glove had also become hooked on a bar, but he was able to slip his hand out of the glove before it was pulled into the machine. P sustained a crush and degloving injury resulting in partial amputations of the index, middle, ring and small fingers of his dominant left hand. A safety guard had been installed in 1979, but the guard was never engaged during normal operation. The only time the guard was engaged was when OSHA inspectors came to the plant. P had on three occasions spoken to his immediate supervisor, Portman, regarding the safety guard. AMI (D) conceded that the guard was removed for 'speed and convenience.' P sued D on an intentional tort theory. He also named Portman in the suit for discovery purposes. Ds moved for summary judgment, claiming that the Workers' Compensation Act barred P from pursuing common law remedies. The trial court granted both motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals. It relied on the lack of any accident over a twelve-year period and determined that OSHA violations alone, in the absence of proof of deliberate intent to injure, would not satisfy the intentional wrong standard. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co