logologologologo
  • Areas of Practice
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Business, Corporate, Real Estate Law
    • Divorce, Custody and Family Law
    • Employment Law
    • Probate and Estate
    • Serious Accident and Injury Lawsuits
  • Our Attorneys
    • Robert J. Behal
    • Jack D`Aurora
    • John M. Gonzales
    • Gilbert J. Gradisar
    • Jeffrey A. Eyerman
    • DeAnna J. Duvall
    • Brandon Finley
  • About
    • Location
    • Cases We’ve Handled
    • Legal Fees
    • Testimonials
  • News and Information
  • Contact
✕

Products Liability – $180,000 verdict

  • Home
  • News and Information
  • Cases We’ve Handled
  • Products Liability – $180,000 verdict
February 2, 2015

This case involved a newly installed machine that did not have a safety guard or any warnings regarding what is known as a pinch point. Our client attempted to clear a jam in the machine and, because the pinch point was readily visible, was unaware of the hazard that existed. His right hand became caught in the pinch point, and the tips of two of his fingers were severed.

We brought suit against the manufacturer, asserting that it had failed to design an appropriate safety guard. The manufacturer claimed it was not responsible because our client’s employer had designed and then removed a safety guard. We contended that the manufacturer knew of the risk that existed and failed to either place an adequate warning on the machine or install a suitable safety guard. The manufacturer offered only $5000 to settle the matter. The jury saw things our way and awarded $180,000.
[Roush v. International Material Control (Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, case no. CVC 950301)]

Share

Related posts

Fotolia 81808080 XS
September 1, 2019

Dissolving a Business Relationship Gone Bad


Read more
Gonzo BW cropped
August 24, 2018

Behal Law partner John Gonzales wins $55,000 judgment


Read more
December 29, 2017

Arbitration—allegations of misrepresentation


Read more

Search

✕

Categories

  • Cases We’ve Handled
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Recent Posts

  • Trial court required to conduct hearing for wrongfully convicted client
    November 12, 2022
  • Bologna
    Seitz, LaRose, Paduchik attacks on O’Connor undermine justice
    April 20, 2022
  • DAuroraSimonYaoStudio arms crossed reduced scaled e1648673236962
    Law denies justice to woman raped repeatedly as a child
    March 30, 2022
  • COVID 19 Back to the workplace
    COVID-19 poses litigation exposure for employers
    November 16, 2020
  • contract
    Exceptions to the “no-oral modification” provision in a contract
    October 25, 2020

Areas of Practice

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Business, Corporate, Real Estate Law
  • Divorce, Custody and Family Law
  • Employment Law
  • Probate and Estate
  • Serious Accident and Injury Lawsuits

Recent News and Information

  • Trial court required to conduct hearing for wrongfully convicted client
  • Seitz, LaRose, Paduchik attacks on O’Connor undermine justice
  • Law denies justice to woman raped repeatedly as a child
  • COVID-19 poses litigation exposure for employers
  • Exceptions to the “no-oral modification” provision in a contract

Resources and Forms

  • Resources and Forms
    • Westlaw – Headnote of the Day
    • Ohio Secretary of State – Business Services
    • Franklin County Recorder – Document Search
    • Franklin County Common Pleas Court Online Docket
    • Franklin County Auditor – Real Property Lookup
    • Delaware County Recorder – Document Search
    • Delaware County Common Pleas Court Online Docket
    • Delaware County Auditor – Real Property Lookup
    • Columbus Dispatch

Behal Law © 2023 | Designed by SiteInSight