Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.,

241 Conn. 199 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P were employed as grinders which required their use of pneumatic hand tools to smooth welds and metal surfaces. Ps' use of D's tools spanned a 25-year period from the 1960's -1987. Ps suffer from permanent vascular and neurological impairment of their hands which has caused a blanching of their fingers, pain, numbness, tingling, reduction of grip strength, intolerance to cold and clumsiness from restricted blood flow. This symptom is known as hand-arm vibration syndrome. As a result, Ps have been unable to continue their employment as grinders, and their performance of other activities has been restricted. P introduced testimony from an industrial hygienist that a large number of D's tools violated the limits for vibration exposure and exceeded established limits by industry associations. Another expert testified about methods used to reduce or eliminate the effects of such vibrations and that such methods were in use for at least 35 years. That expert showed actual designs he accomplished to achieve a threefold reduction in vibration levels. Still another expert took D’s equipment and applied simple and easy to do foam rubber wraps over the handles and a metal sleeve. That expert tested D’s equipment and found that they reduced vibrations by between 35 and 60 percent. Judgment went to Ps [Specifically, the jury awarded the plaintiffs compensatory damages in the following amounts: Joseph Gladu -- $58,828 (reduced by 25 percent for comparative liability); David Thompson -- $124,988 (reduced by 70 percent for comparative liability); Roy Tutt -- $36,600 (with no reduction for comparative liability); Thomas Brayman -- $65,400 (with no reduction for comparative liability); Jaime Irizarry -- $60,289 (reduced by 20 percent for comparative liability).] D and P appealed. D's tools were found to be defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and that D did not adequately warn, but P failed to prove that adequate warnings would have prevented their injuries, so P did not get damages for the failure to warn.