![]() ![]() Apparently, this type of jamming of the machine was frequent. Plaintiff testified that the injury occurred when he attempted to dislodge a finished product that had not fallen free from the mold. When this gate was opened, it would shut off all power into the machine, preventing the opening or closing of the mold. At the time the trip wire was incorporated into the machine, the employer also added a safety gate. Thus, as altered, the cycles operated continuously. As altered, the second cycle was completed when the cast product separated and fell from the mold, striking the trip wire, which would automatically activate the first cycle. It added a trip wire that automatically started all cycles after the machine was initially turned on. Sometime after the machine left the manufacturer's control, plaintiff's employer altered the manual mode for starting each cycle. The machine also lacked an *143 interlock to cut off power while a worker's hands were engaged in dislodging a jammed part from inside the machine. Further, as designed and manufactured by defendant, there was no safety gate or any other device to guard against a person's hand or fingers from coming into contact with the machine's moving parts while it was either in motion or capable of being set in motion. The second cycle started when the operator pressed another button, permitting the metal to cool and the completed cast to drop from the mold or be removed by hand by the operator. The first cycle began when the operator pressed a designated electrical pushbutton, causing the mold to close so that hot metal could be injected into it. According to the original design of the manufacturer, each cycle of the machine was started manually by the operator. During a second cycle, the metal cooled and the two parts of the mold would separate, freeing the cast metal from the mold. In the operation of the machine, during one cycle, the two parts of the mold closed together, forming a cavity into which molten metal was injected. The machine included a mold consisting of two parts, one of which was stationary. Plaintiff was injured when certain moving parts of a die-casting machine, manufactured by defendant, closed on his hand. For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division also ruled that the "proffered testimony constituted sufficient basis for at least a consideration of the inadequate warning, design defect question." This Court granted certification, 93 N.J. The court ruled that there were unresolved factual disputes relating to whether (1) the machine was defective when manufactured (2) the employer's alterations created an entirely different functional machine and (3) the design defect proximately caused the accident. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter for trial. In entering that judgment, the trial court ruled that there was no dispute that the machine had been altered by the plaintiff's employer, and, as altered, was "an entirely different functional machine." Further, according to the court, there was "no evidence from which a jury could find that the machine *142 as designed and sold by the defendant had in it the elements which were the proximate cause of this accident." After most of plaintiff's evidence had been presented, the trial court, on defendant's motion, entered a judgment of involuntary dismissal against plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4:37. Although other parties were named originally as defendants, they are no longer in the case. The complaint alleged causes of action in strict liability, as well as negligence and intentional wrongdoing, for the accidental injuries. Corp., for the improper manufacture of a die-casting machine, the operation of which caused him severe injuries. Plaintiff, Manuel Soler, sued defendant Castmaster, Division of H.P.M. Because of the procedural course by which this case reaches us, we must also consider the standards for deciding when any of these issues presents a question for a jury's determination and when it is properly left for the court to decide. We must address a series of questions in resolving the ultimate issue: whether the machine as originally designed was defective whether the subsequent alteration was substantial whether the alteration was foreseeable and whether the original design defect was a proximate cause of the accident, taking into account the subsequent alteration. 155 (1984), decided today, presents as a major issue a manufacturer's responsibility under principles of strict products liability for injuries to a foreseeable user of a machine that was substantially altered after it left the manufacturer's control. This appeal, as well as the companion case of Brown v. The opinion of the Court was delivered by HANDLER, J. Kenny argued the cause for appellant (Connell, Foley & Geiser, attorneys). DIVISION OF CASTMASTER, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |