Litigation SupportCommercial Dust CollectorClient Industry: Civil LitigationResult: Settlement Introduction:In one case retained by RWFE, we represented Plaintiff, who suffered injuries to his hand when it was taken into the exhaust port of a commercial dust collector. Though Plaintiff could not initially remember much about the accident, he stated that his hand might have been pulled into the machine. The accident resulted in the loss of all fingers and majority of Plaintiff’s hand.An investigation conducted by Plant Services concluded that all factory guards were in place and the machine was in good working order at the time of the accident. The report also indicated that there was no suction coming from the exhaust port of the subject dust collector during the inspection and it was difficult to reach the port while standing. RWFE was retained to review available discovery materials and to render an expert opinion on the cause of the accident, including the condition, design, and warnings of the subject dust collector and whether the accident could have been avoided through the adoption of a reasonable alternative design and/or the incorporation of adequate warnings. Inspection and Observations:The subject dust collector was compared to different models available on the manufacturer’s website, and was most comparable to one specific machine.Several warnings were observed on the exterior of the subject machine. The warnings indicated dangers such as electrical shock, projectiles, exposed gears, and possible equipment damage. Among these was a warning that indicated the possibility of incorrect motor rotation and directional arrows. No warnings, however, were present near the blower and exhaust port of the subject machine or the similar machine on the website. The exhaust port on the subject machine was completely exposed and held a large impeller designed to move large amounts of dust and air. The exhaust port measured about 7-8 inches in diameter and was located at or just below the waistline of an average standing person. The impeller was located within inches of the end of the exhaust port. The comparable dust collector located on the company website, however, did not contain similarly exposed exhaust ports. The almost identical machine on the website contained a box enclosure “HEPA filter” that prevented foreign objects from entering the exhaust port and contacting the impeller. It appeared that subject dust collector contained an attachment for the HEPA filter, and there was the actual HEPA filter on-site, however the filter was never shown to be attached. The subject HEPA filter appeared to be in like-new condition and showed significantly less wear than the subject machine, indicating that the HEPA filter was not attached to she subject machine very often or at all. Opinion:The subject dust collector was designed to be operated with a HEPA filter contained in a box enclosure that is positioned over the exhaust portion of the machine with four bolts. When properly installed, the HEPA filter acts as both a filtration device as well as a barrier to prevent the expulsion of projectiles and the intrusion of foreign objects into the blower. The website describes the HEPA filter as an optional system that can be added to their machines for hazardous material handling. The company does not ever mention on their website that it is a requirement to operate the dust collector with the HEPA filter. It is also not mentioned in the subject dust collectors’ product manual. This exclusion creates the possibility of confusion in the mind of the consumer who may incorrectly assume that the subject model does not require installation of the HEPA filter for safe operation.No warnings on the subject machine or components or comparable machines state that the use of the HEPA filter is required or warn of possible injuries. The product manual mentioned vaguely to maintain “guards and coverings” in place, but does not detail further what is meant by “guards and coverings”. Conclusions and Recommendations:The subject dust collector showed significant wear and tear while the subject HEPA filter had only minor scuffing and was noticeably less dusty than the subject machine, indicative of a habit to exclude the use of the HEPA filter during use of the subject machine. Without the HEPA filter, the high-speed impeller created a potentially hazardous pinch point located only inches from the exhaust port at or about waist height for the average person.The above-mentioned defects render the subject dust collector defective in design when operated in a reasonably foreseeable and known manner. Based on the information available, and to a reasonable degree of engineering and scientific certainty, RWFE determined this accident could have been prevented through the adoption of one or more reasonable alternative designs, such as permanent attachment of the HEPA filter or relocating the exhaust port to an area where foreign objects aren’t likely to enter. Moreover, the above-mentioned defects render the subject machine inadequate in instructions and/or warnings with respect to foreseeable risks of harm. The risk of this type of accident was determined by RWFE to have been reduced or eliminated through the implication of sufficient instructions and/or warnings. |
Let's Discuss Your ProjectContact us today to discuss your project and find out if RWFE, LLC has the expertise you need. Call us today for a free initial consultation >Recent Posts |
