California Verdicts

Amount:

$5,000,000

Type:

Settlement

State:

California

Venue:

Los Angeles County

Court:

Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles

Injury Type(s):

Case Type:

Products Liability – Design Defect, Industrial Machinery; Worker/Workplace Negligence – Negligent Assembly or Installation

Case Name:

Ramiro Guzman v. Excel Manufacturing, Inc., JM Hydraulics, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,
No. BC516838

Date:

April 7, 2014

Plaintiff(s):

Ramiro Guzman (Male, 20 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Edward Steinbrecher;
Steinbrecher & Associates;
Encino,
CA,
for
Ramiro Guzman

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Jose Fuentes;
Ph.D.;
Psychology/Counseling;
Loma Linda,
CA called by
Edward Steinbrecher ■ Yong Lee;
M.D.;
Physical Medicine;
Pomona,
CA called by
Edward Steinbrecher ■ Darryl Zengler;
M.A.;
Economics;
Pasadena,
CA called by
Edward Steinbrecher

Defendant(s):

JM Hydraulics, Inc., 

Excel Manufacturing, Inc.

Defense Attorney(s):

Warren L. Gilbert;
Hosp Gilbert & Bergsten;
Pasadena,
CA,
for
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. ■ Mark A. Weinstein;
Veatch Carlson, LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
JM Hydraulics, Inc. ■ Maurice L. Chenier;
Veatch Carlson, LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
JM Hydraulics, Inc.

Defendant Expert(s):

Morris Farkas;
Safety;
Santa Monica,
CA called by
Mark A. Weinstein, Maurice L. Chenier

Insurer(s):

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (primary carrier – $1 million policy) for JM Hydraulics, Inc.
Evanston Insurance Co. (excess) for Excel Manufacturing, Inc.
First Mercury Insurance Co. (FMIC) (primary carrier – $1 million policy) for Excel Manufacturing, Inc.
Colony Specialty (excess) for JM Hydraulics, Inc.

On March 2, 2013, plaintiff Ramiro Guzman, 20, was a temporary employee assigned by Staffmark Inc. to work at AMF/Tridien as a foam puncher making components for medical products. Guzman had filled up a cart with scrap foam and wheeled it outside onto a platform that led to a horizontal baler, where foam was dumped into it and compacted into bales. During the process of dumping a cart of scrap foam, Guzman’s left foot became caught in a hole in a foam mat that was being pulled into the baler. The ram was activated by a photo-eye from the dumping of foam. Once Guzman was pulled inside the baler, he had a few seconds to try to extricate himself, but he could not jump out of the baler. There were no emergency stopping devices nearby. As a result, the ram closed on Guzman’s thighs exerting 159,000 pounds of pressure, causing the amputation of both of his legs. Guzman sued the designer and manufacturer of the baler, Excel Manufacturing Inc., and the seller and installer of the baler sold to AMF/Tridien in 1998, JM Hydraulics Inc. Guzman contended that the defendants knew the baler was going to be used exclusively to compress scrap foam, which would need to be hand-loaded, but the baler was sold to AMF/Tridien without a conveyor or a dump-cart system. Instead, AMF/Tridien installed a four step platform that was used for 10 years to help feed the baler. In 2011, AMF/Tridien modified the subject baler and built a platform that led directly into the baler feeder hopper opening so that employees could walk with carts of foam and dump it directly into the feed hopper. However, AMF/Tridien did not provide any type of barrier guard, interlocked gate, or emergency stopping devices when they installed the platform. Plaintiff’s counsel discovered an Excel Manufacturing video made in 1995 for a similar model baler that showed a worker standing on an elevation, hand-loading scrap into the feed hopper. Counsel contended that at the time the subject baler was sold in 1998, an interlocked barrier gate was not offered or installed to surround the baler feed opening. Counsel contended that, instead, the interlocked gate would need to be open to feed scrap foam into the baler while secondary power to the ram would be disconnected, and then the interlocked gate would need to be closed for the ram to function. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Excel Manufacturing knew about the interlocks and used them in various applications with their horizontal balers. Counsel also contended that the 1997 American National Standard Institute standard described the use of interlocks, as did the 1982 and 1990 ANSI standards. However, counsel contended that the 1997 ANSI standard did not require an interlocked gate around the feed hopper, as it was only a voluntary standard, but that this did not preclude Excel Manufacturing from installing one. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the risk of inadvertent or accidental contact with the feed hopper opening was foreseeable to Excel Manufacturing and other baler manufacturers, as the Centers for Disease Control identified 34 baler deaths from 1992 to 1998, 29 of which (85 percent) occurred when a worker was caught or crushed by the compacting ram of a baler. Counsel noted that another U.S. government report showed 189 work-related deaths were from being caught-in machinery in 1997 and that the Refuse and Scrap Waste Industries together accounted for seven percent of the caught-in fatalities. Counsel further noted that various government publications, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health alerts regarding preventing deaths using baling equipment, expounded upon recognition that workers loading or working near balers are at risk for serious injury and death, and that balers should be equipped with interlocks. In addition, counsel noted that the 2004 and 2008 ANSI safety standards stated that it was obvious before 1998 that balers should be designed with consideration of the risk of injuries, including reasonably foreseeable use and misuse of balers. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Excel Manufacturing had no writings showing any hazard/risk analysis or mitigation analysis regarding inadvertent or accidental contact with the open feed hopper. Counsel contended that, instead, Excel Manufacturing installed a label on the baler that said, "Never enter or reach into baling chamber." Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Excel Manufacturing did not adhere to the National Safety Council’s Accident Prevention Manuals from 1955, 1959 and 1973, regarding safety design engineering principles of risk recognition and taking accidents into account in the design and manufacture of their balers. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the safety hierarchy approach required the use of safeguards to protect workers, such as an interlocked gate and reachable emergency stopping devices. Counsel also asserted that the 1997 ANSI standard required that an emergency stopping device, used to stop the movement of the ram at any point, should be provided and that Occupational Safety and Health Administration § 4353(a) required that emergency stopping devices must be readily accessible to be actuated in an emergency situation. However, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the main power shutoff lever and a red emergency stop button on the Excel Manufacturing baler were located too far away from the feed hopper opening to access in an emergency. In addition, counsel asserted that JM Hydraulics serviced the baler shortly before the accident, saw the modifications by Guzman’s employer, AMF/Tridien, and did not lock out, or tag out, the baler. Counsel for JM Hydraulics contended that the baler was moved from its original location several times by Guzman’s employer, AMF/Tridien. Counsel also contended that AMF/Tridien installed numerous extraneous devices and jerry-rigged the baler to be in the "on" position at all times. Counsel further contended that AMF/Tridien jerry-rigged the machine with a six-foot-long pipe, such that employees could activate the machine from a distance, and erected two plywood walls that covered up the available emergency stopping mechanisms. In addition, counsel for JM Hydraulics contended that following the accident, AMF/Tridien asked JM Hydraulics to provide a quote for an interlocked barrier gate, which was done. Thus, counsel asserted that JM Hydraulics could not be held liable for the baler’s installation and that an interlocked barrier gate should have been installed by AMF/Tridien when the platform was built. Counsel for both defendants contended that the horizontal baler was meant to be fed while standing on the ground and that a platform should not have been used. Thus, counsel asserted that AMF/Tridien was to blame for erecting the platform and not installing any barrier guard, interlocked gate or emergency stopping devices. Counsel further asserted that the illegal modifications caused the accident. JM Hydraulics’ safety/OSHA expert contended that the ramp erected by AMF/Tridien was found by OSHA to be the cause of the accident and that OSHA issued 42 citations for violations by AMF/Tridien. In addition, defense counsel contended that AMF/Tridien had no training program or procedures in place regarding the dumping of carts of scrap foam using the platform. Defense counsel also blamed the baler operator, Guzman’s brother, who left on a personal emergency and did not shut off the baler. Two witnesses testified in deposition that they saw Guzman jumping up and down in the baler, trying to assist the compaction of the foam while the baler was in operation just before the accident. They also testified that they warned Guzman to stop several times, but that he ignored the warnings, kept jumping inside the baler and told them he was helping his brother. Defense counsel contended that Guzman’s brother also confirmed that he would routinely turn the baler off, and jump up and down inside the baler, even though he knew it was against company policy. The witnesses further confirmed that Guzman was holding onto the side of the baler while he was compacting the foam. Thus, defense counsel maintained that Guzman’s testimony about how he was attempting to pull himself up by the side of the baler after he allegedly fell supported a finding that Guzman did not accidentally fall into the baler at all. Counsel maintained that, instead, Guzman was doing exactly what his brother used to do, stand inside the baler to assist in compaction of the foam, but that on this occasion, Guzman’s brother forgot to turn the baler off when he left.

Both of Guzman’s legs were traumatically amputated near the mid-femur area. The severed legs had to be removed from the baler by Corona Fire Department personnel, and then the legs were wrapped in plastic and kept cool with indirect ice. Guzman was subsequently taken to a hospital, but his legs could not be reattached, leaving him without legs above the knee. He now uses a wheelchair to ambulate. The plaintiff’s expert in physical medicine provided a medical report that contended that since Guzman weighed 325 pounds and is 6-foot, 2-inches tall, Guzman has not been able to master the use of prosthetic devices and continues to use the wheelchair to ambulate. The plaintiff’s expert psychologist contended that Guzman has severe psychological problems as a result of the incident. Thus, Guzman sought recovery of $1 million in past medical costs, $7.5 million in future medical costs and $1 million in future loss of earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Guzman also claimed there was a workers’ compensation lien of $1 million.

On the 30th day of a policy limits demand, the parties agreed to a $5 million settlement. Of the total settlement, Excel Manufacturing’s insurance carriers paid $3 million and JM Hydraulics’ carrier paid $2 million. After the settlement, the $1 million workers’ compensation lien was settled for $67,500.

Judge:

Rafael Ongkeko

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for JM Hydraulics. Counsel for Excel Manufacturing did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.