Reid v. Spadone Machine Co

404 A.2d 1094 (1979)

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 worked for Davidson and eventually became a plastics demolder. The demolding was originally done with a 'hot knife,' but that process was replaced with a new Spadone 24-10 bail cutting machine. It is essentially a table-mounted guillotine. The cutting blade is actuated by the simultaneous pressing of two palm buttons located, at the time of the accident, on the side of the machine. Until 1972, the cutter was manufactured with the palm buttons on the front of the machine, facing the operator. In 1972 their position was changed to an arm at the machine's side away from the open cutting area. D's witnesses testified that this change was made after the company learned that some operators were rigging a bar on the two buttons on the front, thereby facilitating one-handed operation. This obviously would lead to an increased possibility of hand injury. The change was designed, to require the operator to load the machine and then walk to the side of the machine to actuate the blade's descent. Its redesign was never intended to change its use to a two-person machine. Davidson's engineers recognized the machine's intended one-person use when they inspected it upon its arrival. Employees were directed to use the cutter as a one-person operation only. P was not present at the demonstration and testified that he was never personally instructed that two-person operation was forbidden. Management became aware of the fact that the machine was occasionally used by two men, one as a feeder and one as a button pusher. Those found using it in such fashion were stopped. It was used as a two-person machine approximately ten to thirteen percent of the time. One supervisor even admitted that he occasionally engaged in the practice. P used the machine with another and reached underneath the blade and, without using the push stick, shoved the cut material back through to the front of the machine. The other man pressed the buttons P lost portions of three fingers from his right hand. P sued claiming the defect was that by moving the buttons to the machine's side, the operator was required to step away from the feeding area and walk to the side to actuate the blade, thus leaving the feeding area open for another person and encouraging two-person use. The trial court ruled that defendant could not use Davidson's conduct as a superseding cause. The jury returned a general verdict for P and D appealed.