Facts

On Dec. 12, 2005, plaintiff Juan Perez, 47, injured his right hand while operating a New Winder paper-rewinding machine manufactured by defendant V.A.S. S.p.A., an Italian entity. The New Winder is a large and complex machine that cuts a large "parent" paper roll weighing in excess of 2,000 pounds into two smaller rolls. The New Winder was installed and put into operation at plaintiff's employer's facilities approximately two days before the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff's employer failed to provide plaintiff with any training or instruction on proper use of the New Winder prior to his injury. The plaintiff's employer also failed to provide plaintiff with a copy of the New Winder's safety and operations manual. The plaintiff had previously used an older paper-cutting machine manufactured by a different entity.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that he suffered serious injury to his right hand while cutting plastic wrap in close proximity to two in-running rollers on the New Winder, which plaintiff argued the defendant failed to guard as required by California Labor Code Sections 6400-6404 and Section 4002(a) of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant knew of the danger of an open nip point and failed to implement any safety mechanism to prevent operator access to the nip point.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the New Winder was properly designed and manufactured, and safe for its intended purpose. It therefore was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff's injuries were caused by plaintiff and his employer's improper and unforeseen misuse of the New Winder.

The defendant argued that plaintiff's employer failed to train and instruct the plaintiff on proper use of the New Winder; the plaintiff entered a zone of danger while the machine was running despite defendant's multiple warnings not to enter such area; the plaintiff intentionally bypassed safety mechanisms intended to prevent access to the danger zone while the machine was running; the plaintiff misused the threading process to wrap plastic around finished paper rolls; and while cutting such plastic with a 5-inch utility knife only 3/4 inch from rotating drums.

The defendant claimed that the nip point where plaintiff injured his hand is non-existent during the actual threading phase (the nip point only existed because the plaintiff failed to eject the finished paper rolls after the machine performed its intended function).

The defendant also relied upon the testimony of the plant manager of plaintiff's employer that the finishing process used was created solely by the employer. The plaintiff's employer stopped wrapping and cutting plastic on the New Winder the day after the plaintiff injured himself.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $337,500. Prior to trial, the defendant made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer for $75,000.

Damages

The plaintiff sought special damages of $33,516 in medical expenses and $14,975 in lost earnings. The plaintiff sought non-specified general damages for serious permanent impairment to his right hand, including digital amputation, functional loss, severe cosmetic disfigurement and related items of detriment, and 33 percent permanent impairment.

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged permanent impairment to his right hand, including digital amputation, functional loss, severe cosmetic disfigurement and related items of detriment causing him to suffer disability with regard to the use of his right hand and 33 percent permanent impairment.

Result

Judgment in favor of defendant on all causes of action in the complaint. The defendant was awarded its statutory costs and expert fees pursuant to C.C.P. Section 998.

Other Information

EXPERT TESTIMONY: The plaintiff's expert witness testified that the process created by plaintiff's employer, referred to a finishing process, which included wrapping plastic around finished rolls on the machine, was not a misuse of the New Winder. Despite the absence of any explicit reference to a finishing process in the New Winder's operation and safety manual, the plaintiff's expert opined that such a process was implicit in the machine's design. The defendant's expert testified that the New Winder contained no design defects and that the machine was equipped with proper safeguarding and warning signs. The process of wrapping plastic around a finished spool of paper and cutting said plastic with a utility knife while the rolls were in motion on the machine was not a process that was specified in the machine's operation manual nor was such a sequence of events reasonably foreseeable to defendant. FILING DATE: Dec. 4, 2007.