Industrial Accident Law Suit

This consultant was contacted by the attorney for a molding machine manufacturer - a defendant in an industrial accident law suit. A molding machine operator had been injured while using a compression molding machine that his client had built in 1966 - before the advent and imposition of OSHA regulations. The claim against the machine manufacturer was that it was their responsibility to assure that the machine was properly maintained and upgraded to meet current standards. Specifically, the machine had a single operating button and no safety gates protecting the mold area, both of which are not only violations of OSHA regulations but serious safety concerns. The machine could be operated with one hand using the thumb to trip the Clamp Close switch and the pinky to push the Cycle Start Button leaving the other hand free to reach into the mold area - which is what this operator was doing when the mold closed and crushed his hand.

The company that originally had purchased the machine had, over the years, undergone four ownership changes. By law, it is the responsibility of the owner of a factory to assure that all of the equipment meets current standards. This regulation would normally have shielded the manufacturer from liability. That, plus the fact that the machine, when built, met all current standards for such equipment, should have been enough to have him dropped from the suit.

To complicate matters though, each new owner of the factory (and therefore the molding machine) had maintained, and renewed, a contract with the machine manufacturer to maintain the machine. Two years before this accident a technician had visited the factory and recommended an "Anti-tie down circuit" which would prevent the machine from being operated with one hand. Although not the best solution, this would have prevented the operator from reaching into the mold are during the cycle, therefore preventing the accident.

Also, although the machine did have an operating setting that would have prevented this type of accident from happening; no one seems to have known whether the operator was aware of this setting. He received no formal training on the machine - a common practice in the plastics industry - and the Plant Manager couldn't recall mentioning this operating option.

This consultant strongly disagrees with the "you should have known then what we know now" school and does not believe that a service contract implies an ownership liability. Therefore this consultant did not believe the manufacturer had any liability for this accident. His suggestion to change the start circuit did not have any enforcement power. The owners of the factory operated a machine that did not meet standards. They, not the people who build it in 1966, were liable.

To see the resume of the expert associated with this case study, see the link below.