Facts

In January 2008, Sharon Doe, a 26-year-old wife and mother of a 5-year-old girl, was working at ABC Manufacturing Co. Sharon Doe and a co-worker were changing a dye on a creasing-and-cutting machine. Sharon Doe was leaning into the machine, her body stretched between the platens. Without warning, the machine started. Before Sharon Doe could extract herself, the platens closed, trapping and crushing her. She died before firefighters could extract her from the machine.

The machine was a manually fed creasing-and-cutting machine manufactured in China. The machine was imported into this country by XYZ Machinery and eventually sold to ABC Manufacturing. The creasing-and-cutting machine had two platens: a stationary, vertical platen on which a dye was affixed, and a moving platen that carried stock to be cut or embossed. A motor, driven through a magnetic clutch, caused the moving platen to open and close like a clamshell, accomplishing the machine's creasing-and-cutting function.

Plaintiffs, the surviving husband, age 29, and daughter sued ABC Manufacturing for wrongful death.

Although injured workers are generally limited to workers' compensation benefits when they are injured on the job, California has a statutory exception allowing workers injured in power-press accidents the right to sue in civil court if their injuries are attributable to the removal or non-installation of guards on power presses.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that the machine met the elements of the power press exemption statute; that the machine was a power press as defined by it being a machine that formed materials using a dye and the materials cut or creased by the machine were used to create other items; that the decedent was injured at a point of operation; and that the employer either willfully failed to install or willfully removed the point of operation guard.

Plaintiffs also located evidence that some time before the decedent's death, ABC Manufacturing employees were working on the machine. The stock they were using was larger than the machine's platens, so when the machine cycled, the stock impacted with a bar, called the safety lever, connected to the top of the stationary platen. This caused the machine to stop, so the employees could not complete their task.

Plaintiffs' alleged that, after the employees asked the company's owner what they should do, he told them to take the safety lever off the machine. Plaintiffs contended that the employees followed that directive, but after they completed the job, they did not reinstall it. Inspection of the machine after the decedent's death revealed that the safety lever was not on the machine.

Plaintiffs also claimed that XYZ Machinery was liable for importing and selling a defectively designed machine. Plaintiffs' experts identified a number of design flaws in the installed safety mechanisms. Alternatively, the machine could have been equipped with a pressure mat for the operator to stand on. If there is no weight on such a mat, the machine will not operate.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants both contended that the decedent was inattentive and caused the machine to cycle by bumping the activator.

ABC Manufacturing contended that the machine was not a power press; that it did not have notice of the safety devices; that its employees did not remove any safety devices; and that if they had removed safety devices it had been done without management knowledge.

XYZ Machinery contended that the machine was not defective and that the decedent and ABC Manufacturing caused the incident.

Damages

Plaintiffs' economist calculated that the present value of the family's economic was approximately $1.5 million. Plaintiffs also sought to recover significant non-economic damages caused by the loss of wife and mother.

Result

The case settled for $5,750,000 ($4,750,000 from ABC Manufacturing; $1,000,000 from XYZ Machinery)

Other Information

Plaintiffs were unable to sue the manufacturer as it was located in China and beyond the court's jurisdiction for enforcing a judgment, and there is no treaty between the United States and China requiring Chinese courts to enforce United States courts judgments. INSURER: Republic Indemnity for ABC Manufacturing; Hartford for ABC Manufacturing; Colony Insurance for XYZ Machinery.