In this case, we represented a fellow who worked on a box printing machine at a printing shop in Berks County, PA. Our client was one of the nicest young men you would hope to meet.
One day, he was working on the machine and the machine became jammed. One of the cardboard boxes that was moving through the printer got caught up in one of the components of the machine.
According to standard protocol, our client pushed the stop button, reached in and pulled out the jammed box. When he did that however, the machine cycled and created a crush point even though the machine had been depowered with the stop button.
Unfortunately, our client suffered a crush and degloving injury to his arm when that occurred.
We sued the manufacturer of the machine, which was located in Switzerland. They said that the machine could not cycle once the stop button was pushed.
We were able to analyze the electrical drawings for the machine and went through all of the electrical schematic drawings.
We found that when certain circuits in the machine were opened and closed, the portion of the machine that injured our client can cycle even though the stop button was activated.
We brought the main product engineer here from Switzerland to depose him in this case. We asked questions about the design drawings and the electrical circuitry of the machine.
Eventually, the man acknowledged that when a jam in this particular location is cleared, under certain circumstances, the machine can cycle even when the stop button is activated. That was exactly what our client told us, and we were able to prove that to the defendant.
That crucial deposition resulted in us being able to obtain a very significant and satisfactory settlement of the case for our client.
Post a Comment to "A Look Back At A Products Liability Case: Defective Design Of A Printing Machine"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."