LAIDLOW V. HARITON MACHINERY CO., INC.
790 A.2d 884 (2002)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Laidlow (P), employee and spouse, sought review of the judgment
affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hariton (D), employer and
supervisor, in Ps' intentional tort case.
FACTS: Laidlow (P) suffered a serious injury when his hand was caught in a rolling mill
being operated without a safety nip guard. P was performing his job as a 'set up man,' which
required him to work with a rolling mill that changed the dimension of heated metal bars
when they were inserted into the mill. P manually inserted the bars into a 'channel' that
guided them into the mill, and often had to apply pressure to the bars with his hand in
order to feed them into the rollers. P's glove became caught by the unguarded nip point as
he was pushing a bar of silver into the channel. His gloved hand was pulled toward the
mill's rollers. On a prior occasion, P's glove had also become hooked on a bar, but he was
able to slip his hand out of the glove before it was pulled into the machine. P sustained a
crush and degloving injury resulting in partial amputations of the index, middle, ring and
small fingers of his dominant left hand. A safety guard had been installed in 1979, but the
guard was never engaged during normal operation. The only time the guard was engaged was
when OSHA inspectors came to the plant. P had on three occasions spoken to his immediate
supervisor, Portman, regarding the safety guard. AMI (D) conceded that the guard was removed
for 'speed and convenience.' P sued D on an intentional tort theory. He also named Portman
in the suit for discovery purposes. Ds moved for summary judgment, claiming that the
Workers' Compensation Act barred P from pursuing common law remedies. The trial court
granted both motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals.
It relied on the lack of any accident over a twelve-year period and determined that OSHA
violations alone, in the absence of proof of deliberate intent to injure, would not satisfy
the intentional wrong standard. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment