$5M Workplace Dismemberment Recovery from a Lathe Accident

Our client worked as a Lathe Operator at the time of the incident. They were operating a lathe processing a flange on a vehicle’s crankshaft when they became entangled with the rotating crankshaft. This resulted in severe injuries from workplace lathe machine accidents, including the amputation of their left arm. Our client was wearing the proper personal protective attire. This included steel-toed boots, long socks, pants, a T-shirt, and a heavy-duty Carhartt jacket. Their first memory of the accident was their co-worker attempting to pull them out of the machine.

Our client sued the plaintiffs for strict product liability, negligent product liability, and negligence. They contended that design and/or manufacturing defects of the lathe they were operating caused their injuries. However, our client believed that a metal shaving attached itself to the left inside their jacket and pulled them onto the rotating crankshaft, amputating their left arm.

In the deposition, they discussed a phenomenon involving a string of metal shavings that could reach a length of 7 feet or more. As a result, this string could hit the ground and cause injury to the operator. Our client’s expert claimed that there were major safety issues with the lathe. These issues ultimately resulted in the crankshaft sucking in our client. The first was that a metal shaving came off the machine to an unguarded location. Then, the second one was the chuck of the lathe was unguarded, which the expert claimed caused the ultimate amputation of our client’s arm. Consequently, the expert contended that there were safety components that could have been used on the machine to prevent our client’s injuries.

The defense argued that our client could not establish that the workplace lathe machine accidents were a substantial factor. This is because there were no witnesses and because they did not remember what occurred. They claimed that there was zero evidence other than that our client’s injuries occurred while operating the lathe. They stated that our client had no evidence to establish a triable issue of fact as to the essential element of causation. In addition, they noted that our defendant’s claims asserting that they were responsible were speculative.