The Stoddard Firm Obtains Settlement in Products Liability Case

Our client worked at an Atlanta-area factory where he repaired and maintained large industrial machines. While at work, he was asked to repair a metal chain and sprocket that powered an industrial conveyor.

Although he had repaired the chain several times before, this time, as he neared completion, the chain suddenly began to move and pulled his left hand into the sprocket. Two fingers were nearly severed, and a third was badly crushed. Our client was rushed to the hospital and underwent several surgeries in an effort to save his fingers. Unfortunately, the surgeries were not successful, and he ultimately lost all three fingers—leaving him unable to continue his lifelong work as a machinery technician.

Get a Consultation

Contact us or Call us today

The Stoddard Firm conducted a thorough investigation of the machine and its manufacturer. We determined that the machine, built in 2021, was unreasonably dangerous. We filed a products liability and negligence lawsuit in Georgia State Court against the manufacturer. The company denied that its machine was defective and attempted to blame both our client and his employer.

To counter these claims, we located and obtained testimony from the former plant manager and former employees of the manufacturer. Using the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, we subpoenaed witnesses located in the Midwest. Through this process, we discovered that the manufacturer had delivered the machine to the Atlanta plant without a control manual and provided almost no training on how to operate it.

We retained a leading machine safety expert to inspect and test the equipment. Our expert also scanned the machine and created a 3D model for use in litigation.

The expert identified multiple serious safety hazards. Fundamentally, the manufacturer failed to follow a key principle of engineering safety known as the hierarchy of engineering controls.

We also discovered that, although the manufacturer claimed the machine complied with specific engineering standards, it did not meet those standards in several critical areas. Most notably, the manufacturer asserted that it had performed a written risk assessment of the machine’s hazards, but during litigation, it was forced to concede that no such written assessment existed.

In addition, the manufacturer failed to place a required safety label near the sprocket warning that the chain could start automatically—a simple, inexpensive step that likely would have prevented the injury. Even the manufacturer’s own expert ultimately conceded that the machine, which was controlled through a complex series of touchscreens, should have included a manual explaining how to operate it.

Contact a Personal Injury Lawyer Now

Contact us or Call Us

To demonstrate that the machine’s risk of harm outweighed its utility, we proposed several alternative, cost-effective design modifications that would have prevented this injury.

Because of the compelling evidence we obtained, our client received a large confidential settlement, which he chose to accept.