|
JUAN PEREZ v. V.A.S. S.p.A.
(Los Angeles Superior Court, Southeast District, August 2009)
In a written opinion issued August 3, 2009, the Hon. Patrick T. Meyers of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Southeast District, entered a total defense judgment in favor of Defendant V.A.S. S.p.A., represented by Frank T. Sabaitis and Brad A. Byszewski of Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP, in a Products Liability/Design Defect bench trial. The Court ruled that Plaintiff’s unintended use of a large and sophisticated piece of industrial machinery was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant manufacturer, V.A.S. S.p.A. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Plaintiff take nothing from Defendant V.A.S. S.p.A. on his complaint for products liability and negligence. The Court further ordered that Defendant V.A.S. S.p.A recover all allowable costs under California law.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 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 Plaintiff injured himself. Plaintiff’s employer failed to provide Plaintiff with any training or instruction on proper use of the New Winder prior to his injury. Plaintiff’s employer also failed to provide Plaintiff’s with a copy of the New Winder’s safety and operations manual. Plaintiff had previously used an older paper cutting machine manufactured by a different entity.
In order for a large parent roll to be cut into two smaller rolls, it must first be threaded at a slow, or “jog” speed. To safely perform the threading function, air showers and belts protect an operator from coming into contact with any rotating or dangerous parts. After successfully “threading” a large parent roll on the New Winder, the machine runs at a high speed while the parent roll is cut into smaller rolls. A series of redundant safety features prevent an operator from coming into contact with any rotating or dangerous parts while the machine is running at high speed. Upon completion of the cutting phase, the New Winder shuts down and the paper rolls are to be ejected onto a lowering “cradle.”
Evidence established that Plaintiff and his fellow employees performed additional procedures on the New Winder after the parent roll had been cut but before the resulting rolls were ejected onto the cradle. One such additional procedure was running the New Winder at jog speed and manually wrapping plastic around the finished paper rolls. After the plastic had been wrapped around the paper rolls, but before the machine was turned off, Plaintiff and his fellow employees would use a 5 inch utility knife to cut the plastic wrapping placed on the finished rolls. While performing this plastic cutting procedure, Plaintiff’s utility knife became entangled in the plastic. Plaintiff’s hand was thereafter crushed between two rotating cylinders, referred to as a nip point, on the New Winder.
Prior to trial, Defendant moved to bifurcate the trial into a separate liability phase and, if required, subsequent damages phase. Defendant’s motion to bifurcate was granted and trial on the liability phase commenced on June 4, 2009 before the Hon. Patrick T. Meyers of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Southeast District.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS
At trial, 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 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. Plaintiff further contended that 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. Plaintiff’s expert witness testified at trial 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 any explicit reference to a “finishing” process in the New Winder’s operation and safety manual, Plaintiff’s expert opined that such a process was implicit in the machine’s design.
DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS
At trial, Defendant contended that the New Winder was properly designed and manufactured and safe for its intended purpose and therefore was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant contended that Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by Plaintiff’s and his employer’s improper and unforeseen misuse of the New Winder. Specifically, Defendant argued that (1) Plaintiff’s employer failed to train and instruct Plaintiff on proper use of the New Winder; (2) Plaintiff entered a zone of danger while the machine was running despite Defendant’s multiple posted warnings not to enter such area; (3) Plaintiff intentionally bypassed safety mechanisms intended to prevent access to the danger zone while the machine was running; (4) Plaintiff misused the threading process to wrap plastic around finished paper rolls (5) while cutting such plastic with a 5 inch utility knife only ¾ of an inch from rotating drums. Significantly, the nip point where Plaintiff injured his hand is non-existent during the actual threading phase (the nip point only existed because Plaintiff failed to eject the finished paper rolls after the machine performed its intended function).
Defendant’s expert testified that the New Winder contained no design defects and that the machine was equipped with proper safeguarding and warnings signs. Defendant’s expert also opined that 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.
Defendants also relied upon the testimony of the plant manager of Plaintiff’s employer that the “finishing” process used was created solely by the employer. Plaintiff’s employer stopped wrapping and cutting plastic on the New Winder the day after Plaintiff injured himself.
INJURIES
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% permanent impairment.
DAMAGES
Plaintiff sought special damages of $33,516 in medical expenses and $14,975.43 in lost earnings. 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% permanent impairment.
JUDGMENT
Judgment in favor for Defendant V.A.S. S.p.A on all causes of action in the complaint. Defendant was awarded its statutory costs and expert fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.
|
