$______ RECOVERY - PRODUCT LIABILITY - DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF MIXING MACHINE INTERLOCK - SCREWS CONTROLLING INTERLOCK ON HANDLE CONTROLLING DESCENT OF 900 POUND HOT LID ON MIXING MACHINE LOOSEN FROM VIBRATIONS - RIGHT HAND IS CAUGHT BY DESCENDING LID - PLAINTIFF IS TRAPPED FOR 15 MINUTES - TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION OF TWO FINGERS ON DOMINANT HAND.

• Pages: 3-4

$1,137,000 RECOVERY – PRODUCT LIABILITY –

DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF MIXING MACHINE INTERLOCK

– SCREWS CONTROLLING INTERLOCK ON HANDLE

CONTROLLING DESCENT OF 900 POUND HOT LID ON

MIXING MACHINE LOOSEN FROM VIBRATIONS –

RIGHT HAND IS CAUGHT BY DESCENDING LID –

PLAINTIFF IS TRAPPED FOR 15 MINUTES – TRAUMATIC

AMPUTATION OF TWO FINGERS ON DOMINANT

HAND.

Bergen County, NJ

This was a products liability action involving a large mixing vat that

contained a handle that controlled the slow descent of an 800-900

pound and very hot lid, and which was equipped with an interlock

that would stop the descent whenever a worker released the

handle. The interlock would not function properly if two mounting

screws loosened and backed out because of vibrations on

temperature. The plaintiff named the manufacturer of the mixing

machine and the manufacturer of the component part/descending

handle. The plaintiff also contended that the employer had been

advised on at least three previous occasions that difficulties with the

screws loosening and backing out had defeated the interlock

system.

The plaintiff contended that it was substantially certain that death or seri-

ous injury would occur and that the employer should not have the bene-

fit of the worker’s compensation bar under Laidlow v. Hariton Machine

Co.,170 N.J. 602 (2002). The employer maintained that under Van Dunk

vs. Reckson Associates Realty Corp,; 205 NJ 81 (2011), the court should

hold as a matter of law that the context prong involved in the analysis of

whether an employer’s conduct met the substantial certainty test was not

met in this case in which there was no evidence that the employer at-

tempted to deceive either a governmental agency or employees. The

court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The em-

ployer moved for leave to file an interlocutory appeal and the case

settled while this motion was pending.

The machine was a planetary mixing machine used to mix agents to aid

in production of airplane parts. It was manufactured in 1997 and placed

into the stream of commerce by the manufacturer, who sold it directly to

the employer in late 1997. It contained a ball control valve designed

and manufactured by a component manufacturer. The subject ball

valve had a spring return handle which acted as an automatic shut off if

the operator let go of the handle.

The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff was operating the oil control

valve at the rear of the mixing machine in order to lower the top section

or lid to close a kettle. He moved the ball valve handle to the left, into

the open position. After moving the handle to the left, the plaintiff re-

leased the handle and walked towards the kettle as the top section con-

tinued to descend. The top section of the kettle continued to descend

because the valve handle failed to return to the closed position as it was

designed to do with a spring return.

The failure of the valve to return to the closed position and act as a

“dead-man’s switch” was due to two missing socket head screws. The

plaintiff had noticed that an electrical cable had fallen onto the rim of

the lower section of the kettle as the top section (lid) was descending. In

an effort to prevent damage to the cable from the descending top sec-

tion, the plaintiff attempted to remove the cable from the lid while the

top section was descending. As he was doing so, the plaintiff’s right hand

became entrapped between the top and bottom sections of the kettle.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 3

New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Founder

IraJ.Zarin,Esq.

Editor in Chief

Jed M. Zarin

Contributing Editors

Brian M. Kessler, Esq.

Michael Bagen

Laine Harmon, Esq.

Cristina N. Hyde

Deborah McNally, Paralegal

Ruth B. Neely, Paralegal

Cathy Schlecter-Harvey, Esq.

Julie L. Singer, Esq.

Tammy A. Smith, Esq.

Kate Turnbow, Paralegal

Susan Winkler, Esq.

Business Development

Gary Zarin

garyz@jvra.com

Production Coordinator

Christianne C. Mariano

Professional Search

Tim Mathieson

Court Data Coordinator

Jeffrey S. Zarin

Customer Services

Meredith Whelan

meredithw@jvra.com

Circulation Manager

Ellen Loren

Proofreader

Cathryn Peyton

Web Development &

Technology

Juris Design

www.jurisdesign.com

Published by Jury Verdict Review

Publications, Inc. 45 Springfield

Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081

www.jvra.com

Main Office:

973/376-9002 Fax 973/376-1775

Circulation & Billing Department:

973/535-6263

New Jersey Jury Verdict Review &

Analysis is a trademark of Jury Verdict

Review Publications, Inc.

Reproduction in any form with out the

expresswritten permission of the

publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

New Jersey Jury Verdict Review &

Analysis (ISSN 8750-8060) is

published monthly at the subscription

rate of $345/year by Jury Verdict

Review Publications, Inc., 45 Springfield

Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081.

Periodical postage paid at Springfield,

NJ and at additional mailing offices.

Postmaster: Send address changes to:

New Jersey Jury Verdict Review &

Analys is, 45 Springfield Avenue,

Springfield, NJ 07081.

Subscribe Now