Workplace Injury Case Results

Discover Our Workplace Injury Case Results

Improperly Designed Machine Injures Worker
Electrical Shock
Wrongful Death
Crushing Injury
Equipment Failure

Improperly Designed Machine Injures Worker

J.S. worked for a printing company. He was shredding waste paper one day when the machine he was working on jammed. When he got the paper jam cleared, the roller mechanism grabbed his glove and pulled his hand and then his arm into machine. There were no emergency stops within reach. He climbed into the conveyor and braced himself with his feet to keep his arm from being pulled in even further. Finally, a co-worker heard his screams and turned off the machine. J.S. was rushed to Methodist for surgery to try to save his arm. Because he was injured on the job, worker’s compensation insurance paid J.S.’s medical expenses and lost wages.

Attorneys Mike Stephenson and Brady Rife sued the machine designer, manufacturer, and installers to recover monies for J.S. due to the dangerous design and faulty manufacture and installation of the machine.

All of the parties hired biomechanical and engineering experts. Each defense expert testified that the sole cause of the injury was J.S. himself. Only one of the defendants was even willing to discuss nuisance settlement values prior to trial. With all trial preparation complete, five days before trial, a confidential global settlement was reached.

Electrical Shock

Stephenson was hired by an attorney in Indianapolis to assist in pursuing a claim on behalf of “R.K.” against Aldi Foods. R.K. was a delivery truck driver who had made a delivery to an Aldi store during the middle of the night. While making the delivery, he was pushing a pallet jack through a freezer door when he received an electrical shock from an exposed wire and a threshold that had been missing for some period of time. The defendant denied liability and initially claimed that our client was malingering or grossly exaggerating any injuries he may have received.

Before Stephenson’s involvement in the case, the defendants had offered a nuisance value settlement. After a thorough investigation and hiring the proper expert, Indiana delivery truck accident lawyer Stephenson was able to establish that R.K. would never return to his job as a truck driver. Further, Stephenson was able to establish through expert testimony that the injuries and complaints of pain and suffering were very real and legitimate. After a second round of mediation, our client received a confidential settlement.

[ More About: Workplace Injury Claims ]

Wrongful Death

“C.G.” was working at an expansion construction site in Indianapolis, Indiana for a Kroger
store. Our client was working nearly 20′ in the air on a ladder without proper safety equipment. Proper safety measures were not taken to ensure that the electricity was turned off. C.G. received a shock from a live wire while he was on the ladder and fell off the ladder to his death.

Stephenson pursued a claim against the general contractor who was responsible for maintaining construction site safety. The general contractor filed a cross claim against C.G.’s employer claiming that they were responsible for indemnifying the general contractor and for all construction site safety. After protracted litigation and appeals through both the state and federal courts, the estate was able to obtain a confidential settlement while the appeal was pending.

[ More About: Construction Accidents ]

Crushing Injury

“W.W.” was a 55 year old factory worker working at a Ford manufacturing facility in Indianapolis. He was standing in front of a small trailer that needed to be attached to a Clark tug so the trailer could be moved to a different location in the plant. The Clark tug is commonly seen at airports to move baggage carts around. As W.W. was standing behind the tug to assist the operator of the tug in hooking the trailer, the tug accelerated as it was in reverse and ran over his mid section, crushing his hips. The tug operator was adamant that the accelerator stuck, and that he had to turn the key off to stop the vehicle.

A thorough and detailed examination of the vehicle shortly after the accident showed that there was a design defect in the acceleration system of the tug. There was a cotter pin that held the accelerator linkage to the bottom of the accelerator pedal. This cotter pin was located in such a fashion that it was able to become wedged at the edge of the accelerator when the accelerator was pushed downward and to one side, allowing the accelerator to stick in the down position.

Clark denied liability and claimed that the problems were due to the failure of Ford to maintain its equipment. A thorough examination of the equipment and the manuals provided by Clark, as well as locating Clark certified maintenance technicians, established that this was not an area that Clark had identified needed maintenance.
Prior to trial, Clark settled for a confidential amount.
[ More About: Workplace Injury Claims ]

Equipment Failure

“J.C.” was a 34 year old man working as a pipe fitter in a factory as an independent contractor. While working on a Grove lift, J.C. bent over the control panel for the lift. The screws holding the guard in place had fallen out. When J.C.’s body bent over the top of the lift, a toggle switched was pushed, and the lift jumped up pinning him between the top of the lift and the ceiling. He was crushed and kept in this position for several minutes until he was found by a co-worker. He suffered significant brain damage due to lack of oxygen to the brain.

A thorough investigation identified that the lift had been sold to and maintained by the company that J.C. was moving pipes for and not J.C.’s employer. The company failed to perform any maintenance on the lift and failed to identify the guard on the operation panel. The original design of the operation panel provided the guard to be held in place with standard screws that did not have a lock nut or any locking mechanism on them to ensure a fail safe system. The design of the lift was challenged due to the poor safety design.
Several of the defendants settled prior to trial for undisclosed sums.
[ More About: Workplace Injury Claims ]