 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander v. Demmer Corporation8/20/2002
n the other hand, plaintiff contends that he was told to load all the scrap, which he understood to include the aerosol cans. Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he was loading the wet scrap in the way in which he was trained, but that the explosion occurred anyway. In addition, defendant contends that if an injury were certain to occur, the large explosion would have occurred earlier in plaintiff's shift or, at the very least, the smaller explosions would have been far more numerous. Defendant misconstrues plaintiff's argument, however. Plaintiff does not contend that every load of scrap would have exploded, but that every load of scrap had the potential to explode because each load could have contained a closed aerosol can or water. If the facts as alleged by plaintiff are established at trial, then plaintiff has proved the existence of a continually operative dangerous condition. . . .
Finally, the facts as alleged by plaintiff create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether his employer willfully disregarded that an injury was certain to occur. Defendant argues that while it may have been negligent to require plaintiff to load wet scrap containing aerosol cans, defendant did not willfully disregard a certain injury because no explosion of this magnitude had occurred previously. While this is true, plaintiff has presented evidence that, despite knowledge of the earlier explosion, defendant failed to remedy the condition that caused it.
. . . a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether plaintiff's employer disregarded actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur. . . . [453 Mich at 185-187. (Boyle, J.)]
The plaintiff in Travis, supra, had worked for the defendant wire products company when she was assigned to operate a press brake equipped with a die that formed refrigerator wires. 453 Mich at 155. The plaintiff's supervisor, Clarke, had shown her how to operate the press, which "was designed not to run unless the operator's hands were on the palm buttons." Id. The plaintiff's supervisor operated the press for a few cycles without incident to show the plaintiff how to do the job . After operating the press for about an hour, the press "double cycled," i.e., it cycled without the plaintiff having pressed the palm buttons, while the plaintiff's hands were in the die space, and she was unable to remove her hands before the die came down. The plaintiff's hands were severely injured, and both of her fifth fingers were amputated. Id. at 155. Further,
nbeknownst to plaintiff, the press had been malfunctioning for approximately one month. Clarke testified in his deposition that maintenance employees had been adjusting the exterior mechanisms of the press, which would temporarily correct the problem, sometimes for one to two weeks, and sometimes only for a day or two. Clarke testified that, except in plaintiff's case, each time the press double cycled, the operator was able to identify the problem, avoid injury , and report it to Clarke. At that time, the press would be shut down until further adjustments could be made that corrected the problem. Clarke opined that because the press cycled so slowly, an operator could avoid injury even when it was double cycling.
Rodney King, Greenville Wire's tool room supervisor, testified in his deposition that he learned the day before plaintiff's injury that the press was double cycling again when another press operator refused to run it for that reason. King believed that the problem was such that exterior adjustments could not correct it. King concluded that the press had to be torn down in order to properly repair it, and consequently advised Clarke to shut it down. Clarke
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|